Case Study Continued – Week Five You have been perform.docx

Case Study Continued – Week Five
You have been performing in the role of project manager in
support of Ms. Jackson’s vision of creating a
strong and talented project management professional team
leading to stronger project execution. Ms.
Jackson has just called you into her office with a few updates:
• ACME has been revisiting their strategy and decided that
product development will become a
heavy focus for the organization over the next three years. Due
to this product development
focus, she wants to also implement an Agile training program
which will specifically focus on
Scrum techniques. Ms. Jackson has asked for you to add it to
the scope of the current training
program which was approved when you submitted the business
case. She is not familiar with
change management principles so you will have to create a
change form and high level change
process that the team will follow. Ms. Jackson is willing to
give you an additional $15,000 in
budget but would like this completed in the same timeframe as
the initial project request. The
$15,000 is her budget but may not be based upon what the
actual costs may be. According to
your research, adding Agile may cost an additional $20,000 and
have to be done subsequent to
the initial training program which has already been scheduled.
• In addition, upon a recent review of your risk register with

your team, a risk that was identified
as high impact is seemingly turning into an issue. This risk was
related to the potential turnover
in training personnel. You have just learned that your top
trainer may be leaving the project for
a new opportunity.
• The current forecast of the project indicates that your cost
estimate may have been too low.
Current projections indicate that beginning in month five of the
project, you may be exceeding
your budget by $10,000 per month.
• Other key indicators:
• Your actual month end scheduling data shows that you are
currently performing
according to plan and all tasks are being completed on time.
• Your last staffing report shows very little project team
attrition or turnover.
• Early surveys from participants in the training show a high
degree of satisfaction.
Changes such as these are not uncommon in the project
management profession. Determining
whether the request constitutes a change in scope, schedule, and
budget is an integral component of
project management.
Using your business case, project charter and stakeholder
analysis, determine how this new
information will impact your project. What type of change
process will you be recommended be

implemented?
Assignment Overview:
For this assignment, you will be assessing a proposed change to
the scope of the project, proposing an overview of a change
management process, drafting a change request form, and
discussing how the change will be communicated to the
stakeholders inclusive of the sponsor.
Learning Connection:
This assignment is directly linked to the following key learning
outcomes from the course syllabus:
· Discuss critical success factors
· Introduce leading vs. lagging indicators
· Discuss why the Integrated Change Control process is so
critical
· Discuss risk and issue escalation process to project
sponsors and stakeholders
In addition to these key learning outcomes, you will also have
the opportunity to evidence the following skills through
completing this assignment:
· Critical thinking
· Problem solving
· Quantitative analysis
· Professional writing

Assignment Instructions:
For this assignment, you will be assessing a requested change to
the scope, preparing a change request form, and utilizing your
stakeholder analysis, to determine how the information should
be disseminated. Please be sure to start this assignment early to
allow for sufficient time. Below are the assignment guidelines
and files.
Assignment Files:
To complete this assignment, you will use the following file:
1. Continuation Week Five Case Study document which is
attached above. This is a continuation of the case study
introduced in Week Two.
Guide to Files
· The Case Study file attached here and the original case study
document from Week Two can be leveraged for this assignment.
This will provide you some context to the evaluation you will
be using and allow you to make some reasonable assumptions
about the context of the changes to the project.
Using the information gathered from the original case study,
and the new information provided, write a 4 - 5 page paper
using the following structure:
· Report / Executive Summary - Summarize the finding of the
impact of the change briefly (1 or 2 paragraphs); this should
include the finding of your report, as well as, your
recommendations to your sponsor regarding the implementation
of the change. It should be concise and direct.
· Current Status of Project -- In this section, you want to

provide details regarding the current status. Which indicators
from the case study are you leveraging to describe the current
status?
· Identify any leading vs. the lagging indicators in your
analysis.
· Provide an overview of the change process you will follow to
incorporate the change including the approval process. Will
there be a change control board? Will the PM review prior to
submission for approval? Does the sponsor need to approve
your change request form? Consider including a flow chart and
a summary explaining the flow chart.
· Recommendations - Based on your analysis of the change, tell
us what areas of the project are of concern. Is cost or time a
concern in these areas? Does the scope need be considered?
What are some possible solutions for cost and schedule
related impacts of the change that might be applicable?
· Please insert a draft change request form in your submitted
assignment completed with the relevant information that your
sponsor will need to approve the change.
Here are some general guidelines for formatting:
· Use section headers so that it is clear what the sections of the
report are
· Make good use of tables and/or charts to report the data
· Be concrete; reference the case study and specifics regarding
performance
· Include page numbers
· All Assignment files are due by 11:59 pm, Sunday
Remember completion of an assignment does not guarantee an
'A'. Please refer to the attached grading rubric as a guide to how
the assignment will be assessed.
Strategic Note-taking for Social Sciences Research: QRSTUV

Title and Author
Question
Research Methods
Summary of Findings
Takeaway Message
Unfamiliar Vocabulary
Kenneth Gergen, “Together We Construct Our Worlds”
How are shared social realities constructed through language?
Observation, linguistic analysis
Realities come about through linguistic and social consensus.
Things have no inherent meaning beyond that which we assign
them through the ways we talk about and interact with them. We
may all see the same physical objects, but we understand them
in distinct ways (example: is a tree “fuel” or a “holiday
decoration”?).
Four main points that Gergen discusses:
1. The ways in which we understand the world is not required
by “what there is.”
2. The ways in which we describe and explain the world are the
outcomes of relationship.
3. Constructions gain their significance from social utility.
4. Values are created and sustained within forms of life
(including science).
Words create worlds!
Social construction: a “truth” or “reality” that is based on social
consensus. Social constructions describe how we understand and
interpret things, but do not describe any inherent, non-social
reality.
Language games: the social process by which words acquire
collective meaning and are used to communicate shared
realities. A language game is specific to context and doesn’t
make sense outside that context.
Critical reflexivity: Deliberately stepping out of your own

reality to engage with other possible realities. Most intriguing
when you question things you do not typically put conscious
thought into.

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalC
ode=hjsr20
Download by: [98.234.143.16] Date: 16 April 2017, At: 10:37
The Journal of Sex Research
ISSN: 0022-4499 (Print) 1559-8519 (Online) Journal homepage:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20
Do Women’s Orgasms Function as a Masculinity
Achievement for Men?
Sara B. Chadwick & Sari M. van Anders
To cite this article: Sara B. Chadwick & Sari M. van Anders
(2017): Do Women’s Orgasms
Function as a Masculinity Achievement for Men?, The Journal
of Sex Research, DOI:
10.1080/00224499.2017.1283484
To link to this article:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1283484
Published online: 23 Feb 2017.
Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6404
View related articles
View Crossmark data
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalC
ode=hjsr20
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.108
0/00224499.2017.1283484
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1283484
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCo
de=hjsr20&show=instructions
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCo
de=hjsr20&show=instructions
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/00224499.2017.12
83484
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/00224499.2017.12
83484
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/00224499.20
17.1283484&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-02-23
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/00224499.20
17.1283484&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-02-23
Do Women’s Orgasms Function as
a Masculinity Achievement for Men?
Sara B. Chadwick
Departments of Psychology and Women’s Studies, University of
Michigan
Sari M. van Anders
Departments of Psychology and Women’s Studies, Program in
Neuroscience, Science, Technology,

and Society Program, Reproductive Sciences Program,
University of Michigan
Orgasms have been promoted as symbols of sexual fulfillment
for women, and have perhaps
become the symbol of a woman’s healthy sex life. However,
some research has suggested that
this focus on women’s orgasms, though ostensibly for women,
may actually serve men; but the
mechanisms of this are unclear. In the present experiment, we
hypothesized that women’s
orgasms specifically function as a masculinity achievement for
men. To test this, we randomly
assigned 810 men (M age = 25.44, SD = 8.31) to read a vignette
where they imagined that an
attractive woman either did or did not orgasm during a sexual
encounter with them. Participants
then rated their sexual esteem and the extent to which they
would feel masculine after
experiencing the given situation. Our results showed that men
felt more masculine and reported
higher sexual esteem when they imagined that a woman
orgasmed during sexual encounters
with them, and that this effect was exacerbated for men with
high masculine gender role stress.
These results suggest that women’s orgasms do function—at
least in part—as a masculinity
achievement for men.
Women’s orgasms are promoted as symbols of sexual libera-
tion and satisfaction, and have become one of the ultimate
indicators of a (heterosexual) woman’s healthy sex life
(Opperman, Braun, Clarke, & Rogers, 2014). Books, maga-
zines, and medical journals have actively integrated women’s
orgasms into concepts of healthy heterosexual sex

(e.g., Lavie-Ajayi & Joffe, 2009; Machin & Thornborrow,
2003; Masters & Johnson, 1966; Reich, 1982), framing this
attention as increased consideration to women’s sexual needs.
As such, media messages on how to give women orgasms,
receive them, and make them more frequent, more mind-
blowing, and more multiple, are abundant. This seems posi-
tive, as it suggests that sexual discourse has successfully
shifted from a historically male-centered perspective to one
that celebrates pleasure and sexual liberation for women.
Despite increasing focus on women’s orgasms, research
indicates that the increased attention to women’s orgasms may
also serve men’s sexuality, complicating conceptualizations of
women’s orgasms as women-centric (Nicolson & Burr, 2003).
For example, men have stated that a woman’s orgasm is one of
their most sexually satisfying experiences, describing feelings
of
confidence and accomplishment in connection to female partner
orgasm occurrence (Braun, Gavey, & McPhillips, 2003;
Salisbury & Fisher, 2014). This could further demonstrate posi-
tive shifts in sexual discourse by evidencing men’s enthusiastic
participation in women’s sexual pleasure, but research points to
more self-interested motivations. For instance, heterosexual
women have stated that, while they enjoy orgasms, their desire
to experience orgasm mainly rests on a concern for their male
partner’s feelings and perceptions as a good lover (Lavie &
Willig, 2005; Nicolson & Burr, 2003; Salisbury & Fisher,
2014). Studies have also found that many women fake orgasms
to please their male partners, highlighting that women some-
times prioritize their male partner’s ego over communicating
their own sexual desires (Roberts, Kippax, Waldby, &
Crawford, 1995). In addition, men have reported that they
experience disappointment when their female partner does not
orgasm, but state that they would be reluctant to induce a
woman’s orgasm with a vibrator because of worries of their

own personal inadequacy (Salisbury & Fisher, 2014). Overall, it
appears that men may be more concerned about their role in
women’s pleasure than they are about women’s pleasure itself.
Together, this seems to indicate that although sexuality dis-
course has shifted to promote women’s orgasms, it has not
shifted from a male-centric perspective.
Given conflicting messaging about women’s orgasms, we
are faced with a question: How do women’s orgasms,
Correspondence should be addressed to Sari M. van Anders,
University
of Michigan, Department of Psychology, 530 Church Street,
Ann Arbor, MI
48109. E-mail: [email protected]
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH, 00(00), 1–12, 2017
Copyright © The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
ISSN: 0022-4499 print/1559-8519 online
DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2017.1283484
despite being promoted as being for women, play into a
sexuality discourse that still prioritizes men? Central to this
question are men’s experiences of masculinity, which are
strongly informed by men’s sexual scripts (Philaretou &
Allen, 2001; Wiederman, 2005). Masculinity, therefore,
may set the stage for gendered and not just sexual motiva-
tions in sexual contexts, shedding light on men’s demon-
strated self-interest in women’s orgasms.
Sexual scripts are internalized cultural guidelines that
influence how people interpret, understand, and behave in
sexual contexts. They are notably gendered: Men are
expected to express masculinity through sexual assertive-
ness, control, high sexual desire, and a high number of

sexual partners, while women are expected to display fem-
ininity through sexual restraint and limitations on sexual
access (Gagnon & Simon, 1973; Wiederman, 2005).
Typically, sexual scripts have ignored the role of women’s
pleasure, as women are portrayed as uninterested in sex
(Wiederman, 2005). However, evidence indicates that
men’s sexual script is increasingly characterized by profi-
cient sexual skill that is defined by an ability to provide
women with sexual pleasure and orgasm (Braun et al., 2003;
Gilfoyle, Wilson, & Brown, 1992; Potts, 1998, 2000). For
example, women’s orgasms are often described as some-
thing that results from men’s sexual skill (Potts, 2002), and
they are often framed as something that men “give” to
women via their sexual proficiency (Gilfoyle et al., 1992).
Moreover, both women and men have consistently stated
that men are responsible for physically stimulating women
to orgasm and that women are responsible for being ready to
receive it (Salisbury & Fisher, 2014). Unsurprisingly, this
fits into sexual script notions of men “doing” and women
“being,” such that even heterosexual women’s orgasms are
generally framed as a result of the more agentic gender
(i.e., men). Thus, although sexual expectations have perhaps
shifted to include women’s pleasure, these narratives of
accountability indicate that men’s concern for women’s
orgasms may actually align with sexual scripts that continue
to prioritize men’s masculinity.
Men may additionally experience pressure to perform
sexual script behaviors that buttress their masculinity, lead-
ing to further gendered motivations for men’s investment in
women’s orgasms. As noted by Vandello, Bosson, Cohen,
Burnaford, and Weaver (2008), manhood is precarious; once
it is gained, it can easily be lost, Thus, men must constantly
“prove” themselves through symbolically masculine
achievements. Accordingly, research has evidenced that
men perform sexual script behaviors presumably to rein-

force perceptions of their masculinity and, moreover, that
such behaviors boost men’s self-esteem. For example, a
number of scholars have shown that achieving and claiming
to have had heterosexual sexual experiences is an important
route to status among adolescent male peer groups (Flood,
2008; Holland, Ramazanaglu, & Sharpe, 1994; Kimmel,
1994; Messner, 1992) and that men’s self-esteem increases
when they have sexual experiences with a new female
partner (Baumeister & Tice, 2001). In addition, one study
showed that men reported the highest rates of masturbation
and exposure to pornography only when they thought an
experimenter might read their survey responses
(Alexander & Fisher, 2003). And, research demonstrates
that men generally tend to “round up” their estimate of
sexual partners (Brown & Sinclair, 1999; Smith, 1992;
Wiederman, 1997, 2005). Furthermore, men also experience
masculinity distress when perceptions of their sexual per-
formance are challenged, indicating that sexual script
demonstrations are particularly important to men’s self-con-
cepts. For example, men have reported anxiety about having
low sexual desire because they fear it will negatively affect
perceptions of their masculinity (McCarthy & Ginsberg,
2008; O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998; Wiederman, 2005).
And men exhibit depression when experiences of erectile
dysfunction and premature ejaculation compromise percep-
tions of their sexual competency (Symonds, Roblin, Hart, &
Althof, 2003).
Overall, the evidence seems to suggest that women’s
orgasms may function as a masculinity achievement for
men, explaining some portion of men’s evidenced self-
interest in women’s orgasms. Previous studies support
this connection (Nicolson & Burr, 2003; Salisbury &
Fisher, 2014), but none have explicitly delineated or
empirically tested this association. For example, scholars

have inferred that absence of women’s orgasms may cause
relational difficulties because it puts men’s masculinity at
stake (Lavie-Ajayi, 2005); however, the focus usually cen-
ters on the potential consequences (e.g., women faking
orgasm, men’s decreased self-esteem, women’s concerns
about not orgasming as “anorgasmia”) rather than substan-
tiating the link between women’s orgasms and men’s
masculinity. Thus, although studies have witnessed and
recorded a variety of ramifications of the possible connec-
tion between women’s orgasms and men’s masculinity,
only a few scholars have noted that the increased attention
to women’s orgasms has other, rippling implications for
gender dynamics in sexual contexts (see Hartley & Tiefer,
2003; Lavie & Willig, 2005; Lavie-Ajayi, 2005).
Current Study
This study aimed to empirically assess the link between
women’s orgasms and men’s masculinity. To do this, we
developed a novel design to assess how women’s orgasms
influence men’s masculinity, the Imagined Orgasm Exercise
(IOE), and employed it in an online survey. In the IOE, men
imagined scenarios about themselves with a female partner;
orgasms were either present or absent, and the partner had
either often or rarely experienced past orgasms with pre-
vious partners. We then asked men to rate how masculine
they would feel (along with a variety of other affect and
arousal words) if they experienced the given situation, and
we compared men’s self-reports of masculinity in response
to the various IOE conditions.
Overall, we predicted that women’s orgasms do function
as a masculinity achievement for men and that this
CHADWICK AND VAN ANDERS

2
relationship is influenced by men’s individual differences.
We outlined seven hypotheses in our experiment to show
this. First, we hypothesized that (hypothesis 1) men would
report feeling more masculine when they imagined that a
female partner orgasmed with them compared to men who
imagined that a female partner did not orgasm. In addition,
we expected that the woman’s sexual history would create a
basis for social comparison, and we hypothesized that
(hypothesis 2) men would feel most masculine in a “major
success” situation, that is, where a woman orgasmed with
them and had not previously orgasmed with others in the
past. We also hypothesized the converse: that (hypothesis 3)
a “major failure” condition would elicit the lowest feelings
of masculinity in men, where a woman did not orgasm with
them but had often orgasmed in the past. Finally, because
we hypothesized that feeling masculine functions as an
achievement, we hypothesized that (hypothesis 4) the
word masculine would be related to constructs tied to
success.
The ways that women’s orgasm might function as a
masculinity achievement for men might depend on a
number of individual differences. For example, beliefs,
personality traits, identities, and sexual experience may
affect men’s perceptions of women’s sexual pleasure and
men’s feelings about their masculine identity. Thus, we
also had a number of subhypotheses about the ways that
trait variables would impact men’s experiences of the
IOE, including the presence of traditional versus egalitar-
ian values, men’s level of investment in a sexual partner’s
sexual satisfaction, and the degree of masculine gender
role stress. Specifically, we hypothesized that (hypothesis

5) traditional versus egalitarian values would influence
the degree to which men would feel masculine in
response to women’s orgasm presence; but we did not
have specific predictions about the direction of effect
because there were compelling reasons to believe that
traditional or egalitarian values could impact men’s mas-
culinity in response to women’s orgasms. We also
hypothesized that (hypothesis 6) men’s level of invest-
ment in their partner’s sexual satisfaction might function
similarly because investment in women’s pleasure could
align with traditional or egalitarian approaches to sexual-
ity. For instance, traditional views of sexuality strongly
align with sexual scripts that position men as sexual
agents and women as passive sexual recipients
(Wiederman, 2005), suggesting that traditional men
might be more motivated to demonstrate masculine sexual
behavior and thus experience women’s orgasms as more
of a masculinity achievement than egalitarian men, whose
feelings of masculinity are perhaps less dependent on
such demonstrations. But it could also be the case that
men with traditional attitudes do not expect women to
orgasm and are therefore not invested in whether a
woman’s orgasm occurs. In contrast, men with egalitarian
values might resist traditional conceptualizations of mas-
culine sexuality that require demonstrations of masculine
sexual behaviors, such as “giving” women orgasms, thus
disconnecting women’s orgasm occurrence from their
own sense of masculinity. In addition, it may also be
the case that men with egalitarian attitudes expect
women to want orgasms, positioning women’s orgasms
an important to men’s perception of what constitutes a
positive sexual encounter. In support, some men believe
that their investment in women’s orgasms makes them
“enlightened” men, feeling it is their duty to give
women as much pleasure as they themselves experience

(Gilfoyle et al., 1992). This indicates that egalitarian
men’s may be more concerned with women’s orgasms
as a demonstration of masculinity, as women’s orgasms
signal success as a liberal, egalitarian-minded man.
We also anticipated that men who feel that their mascu-
linity is more fragile may be more motivated to prove
themselves and gain masculinity achievements, whereas
men who feel stable about their masculine identity may
be less concerned (see Arrighi & Maume, 2000; Berdahl,
2007; Maass, Cadinu, Guarnieri, & Grasselli, 2003;
Theodore & Basow, 2000). Thus, we hypothesized that
(hypothesis 7) men who had high masculine gender role
stress would feel most masculine in response to situations
where the woman orgasmed and least masculine in situa-
tions where she did not.
Method
Participants
Analyses included 810 men (M age = 25.44, SD = 8.31)
recruited through an introductory psychology participant
pool and the community. To be eligible for this study,
participants had to identify as a man, be 18 years of age
or older, and be currently sexually attracted to women
(participants did not have to be heterosexual to participate).
We recruited specifically to increase sexual minority repre-
sentation through similar advertisements targeted toward
non-heterosexual-identified men who were sexually
attracted to women. All nonheterosexual participants
included in analyses indicated that they were sexually
attracted to women, confirming that they met inclusionary
criteria (via Kinsey scale responses, reported genders of
sexual partners, and/or through qualitative responses).
Participants were excluded from analyses if they did not

fit the eligibility criteria (n = 10), if they indicated that they
had taken the survey more than once (n = 35), or if they
indicated that their responses were intended as jokes (n = 7).
See Table 1 for demographic characteristics of the
participants.
Baseline Measures
Health and Demographics Questionnaire. The health
and demographics questionnaire section contained items that
asked about participants’ age, education, income level,
occupation, race/ethnicity, disability status, and religious
beliefs.
WOMEN’S ORGASMS AS A MASCULINITY ACHIEVEMENT
3
Sexuality Questionnaire. The sexuality questionnaire
contained items about sexuality, including number of current
and past sexual partners, gender of sexual partners, sexual
orientation/identity, sexual experience and fantasies, and
masturbation frequency. Sexual activity was defined as contact
involving the participant’s or another person’s genitals.
Relationship Questionnaire. The relationship questionn-
aire contained items about romantic relationships, including
relationship status, number of relationship partners, divorce
status, and relationship satisfaction.
Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Role Scale (Sample
α = .91). The Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Role scale
(TESR; Larsen & Long, 1988) is a Likert-type scale that

measures participants’ attitudes toward egalitarian-
traditional sex roles. Participants are asked to rate the
extent to which they agree or disagree with a series of
statements (e.g., “Women should have as much sexual
freedom as men”) using a 6-point Likert-type scale with 1
indicating Strongly disagree and 6 indicating Strongly
agree. Higher scores indicate more egalitarian values;
lower scores indicate more traditional values.
Sexual Relationship Scale. The Sexual Relationship
Scale (SRS; Hughes & Snell, 1990) measures communal
and exchange approaches to sexual relationships, which
we used to indicate level of investment in a partner’s
sexual pleasure. Individuals who take a communal
approach feel responsible for and involved in their
partner’s satisfaction and welfare. Individuals with an
exchange approach to sexual relations are characterized
as being interested in their partner’s sexual pleasure only
to receive reciprocated sexual favors. Participants are
given a list of communal and exchange-oriented
statements (e.g., “When I make love with someone I
generally expect something in return”; “If I were to
make love with a sexual partner, I’d take that person’s
needs and feelings into account”) and asked to rate on a
5-point scale how much the statement applies to them. A
rating of 1 indicated that the statement is Not at all
characteristic of them and 5 indicated that the
statement is Very characteristic of them. Scale
calculation results in two subscale scores: one for
communal approach (sample α = .77) and one for
exchange approach (sample α = .69). Higher scores on
each indicate a higher communal or exchange approach,
respectively.
Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (Sample α = .91).
The Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRS; Eisler

& Skidmore, 1987) measures the degree to which certain
gender-role-related situations would be stressful for men,
including a variety of cognitive, behavioral, and
environmental events associated with the male gender
role (e.g., being outperformed at work by a woman).
The specific domains assessed by this scale are
(a) physical inadequacy; (b) emotional inexpressiveness;
(c) subordination to women; (d) feeling intellectually
Table 1. Participant Characteristics
Demographic N (%)
Age 810
18–24 444 (54.8)
25–34 294 (36.3)
35–44 33 (4.1)
45–54 20 (2.5)
55–64 15 (1.9)
65–72 4 (0.5)
Recruitment source 810
Subject pool (introductory psychology course) 102 (12.6)
Community (office of the registrar random e-mail sampling,
Craigslist, Facebook, Reddit)
708 (87.4)
Occupation status 810
Student only 244 (30.1)
Student and employed (part or full time) 289 (35.7)
Employed nonstudent 236 (29.1)
Unemployed nonstudent 41 (5.1)
Currently living in the United States 809
Yes 773 (95.4)

No 36 (4.4)
Race/ethnicity/nationa 810
Caucasian/White 578 (71.4)
Multiracial 38 (4.7)
European 28 (3.5)
African American/Black 24 (3.0)
Asian/Asian American 22 (2.7)
Indian 22 (2.7)
Hispanic/Latino 16 (2.0)
South/Southeast Asian 14 (1.7)
East Asian (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Korean) 14 (1.7)
Middle Eastern 12 (1.5)
Mexican/Mexican American 7 (0.9)
Australian/New Zealander 4 (0.5)
Native American 3 (0.4)
No response 28 (1.1)
Sexual orientation/identitya 810
Heterosexual/straight 651 (80.4)
Bisexual 124 (15.3)
Pansexual 11 (1.4)
Heteroflexible/bicurious 9 (1.1)
Queer 9 (1.1)
Gay 4 (0.5)
Polysexual 1 (0.1)
Unlabeled nonheterosexual 1 (0.1)
Relationship status 808
Single (no sexual or romantic contacts) 215 (26.6)
Single (no relationships, some sexual contacts) 148 (18.3)
Dating 75 (9.3)
Committed relationship 224 (27.7)
Married/common law/life partnership 125 (15.5)
Other 21 (2.6)

Sexual experienceb 809
Yes (women only) 597 (74.2)
Yes (women and other genders) 101 (12.5)
Yes (men only) 11 (1.4)
No (no sexual partners) 96 (11.9)
aCategories were created by the authors based on participants’
self-identi-
fication in response to an open-ended item.
bDefined as contact with another person involving the
participant’s or the
other person’s genitals.
4
inferior; and (e) performance failures in work or sex.
Participants are asked to rate on a 5-point scale how
stressful they would find a series of situations, with 1
indicating Not at all stressful and 5 indicating Extremely
stressful. Higher scores on the MGRS indicate higher
anticipated stress for situations that challenge male
gender roles.
Experimental Manipulation
Imagined Orgasm Exercise (IOE). Participants were
randomly assigned to read one of four vignettes in which
participants imagine a sexual experience with an attractive
female partner that they like very much with whom they
have had sex three times already; these parameters were set
to establish a situation in which men might be more
invested than a one-night stand but still unaccustomed to

their sexual compatibility with the woman. The vignettes
also specified the female partner’s orgasm history with
previous partners to differentiate each condition as a
major versus minor success or a major versus minor
failure. The IOE had four conditions phrased similarly,
from a 2 (orgasm presence: present versus absent) × 2
(orgasm history: often versus rarely) design: (1) “major
success”—the participant imagined that the female
partner always had an orgasm during sex with him after
being told that she rarely orgasmed with previous partners;
(2) “minor success”—the participant imagined that the
female partner always had an orgasm during sex with
him after being told that she often orgasmed with
previous partners; (3) “minor failure”—the participant
imagined that the female partner had not had an orgasm
during sex with him after being told that she rarely
orgasmed with previous partners; (4) “major failure”—the
participant imagined that the female partner had not had an
orgasm during sex with him after being told she often
orgasmed with previous partners. Arguably, this format
has high face validity, since we asked participants to
imagine a situation that is both possible and plausible;
moreover, participants were able to respond to the
situation.
Dependent Variables1
Affect and Arousal Scale. The Affect and Arousal
Scale (AAS; Heiman & Rowland, 1983) was designed to
assess state affect and arousal in studies of subjective and
genital sexual arousal. We used it to assess affect and
arousal after the manipulation. We modified the AAS to
include words associated with success and failure and to
remove words irrelevant to our hypotheses; we have adapted
this scale successfully in the past (Goldey & van Anders,
2011, 2012; Ritchie & van Anders, 2015; van Anders,

Tolman, & Volling, 2012). Specifically, we included the
words masculine and feminine to assess feelings of
masculinity and femininity and to test whether the
“masculine” item grouped with other items related to
success. The AAS included a total of 36 words.
Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale the
extent that they would feel the listed emotion if they
experienced the situation outlined in the vignette. The
scale was anchored with 1 = Very slightly or not at all and
5 = Extremely. The modified AAS scale resolved into four
subscales after exploratory factor analysis: accomplishment
(e.g., successful, content), negative affect (e.g., ashamed,
distressed), focused (e.g., attentive, determined), and lack
of concern (e.g., bored, uninterested). All AAS factors
exhibited internal consistency (all αs ≥ .70) and had
eigenvalues greater than 1.
The Sexuality Scale. The Sexuality Scale (SS; Snell
& Papini, 1989) measures participants’ sexual esteem,
depression, and sexual preoccupation. The sexual
preoccupation subscale was excluded from this study
because it was unrelated to our hypotheses. Participants
were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert-type scale the
extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a series
of statements about how they would feel if they
experienced the imagined vignette situation (e.g., “I
would rate myself as a good sexual partner”), with 1
indicating Agree and 5 indicating Disagree. Scale
calculation resulted in two subscale scores: one for
sexual esteem (sample α = .95) and one for sexual
depression (sample α = .91).
In the current study, sexual esteem and sexual depres-
sion scores were significantly and highly negatively corre-
lated, r (1, 796) = −.841, p < .001, indicating that they

were measuring the same construct; we thus combined
them to create a single measure (sexual esteem/depression
[SED]; sample α = .96) with high scores indicating higher
sexual esteem and low scores indicating higher sexual
depression. We conducted analyses on the sexual esteem
and sexual depression scores separately and then as one
construct, and the pattern of results was the same; thus, we
used the combined SED measure to reduce the number of
analyses.
Exclusion Questions. To confirm that the study
questions were answered seriously, participants were
asked to indicate if they were joking when they
responded to any of the survey items. Participants were
also asked to indicate how many times they completed the
survey as a way to screen for multiple attempts at
participation. Data from participants who indicated that
they were joking or that they took the survey more than
once were removed before beginning any assessment.
Procedure
Approval for this study was obtained from the
University of Michigan institutional review board (IRB).
Online recruitment advertisements and the introductory
subject pool website directed participants to follow a
survey link where they consented to study participation.
5
Participants then completed a short screening question to
determine their eligibility for study involvement. Once

participants were deemed eligible, they completed the
online survey, which first asked about health and demo-
graphics. Participants subsequently filled out the relation-
ship and sexuality questionnaires, the SRS, the MGRS,
and the TESR. Next, participants completed the IOE.
Immediately following the IOE, participants filled out
the AAS and the SS. Participants also filled out the
measures described the Notes section. To complete parti-
cipation in this study, participants answered forced-
response questions regarding the number of times they
took the survey and whether their answers included joke
responses. Subject participation was compensated through
entry into a raffle to win one of four $50 Amazon.com
gift certificates. E-mail addresses were separated from
participant responses to ensure anonymity.
Analyses
Analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package
for the Social Science (SPSS) Version 23.0. Self-reported
feelings of masculinity and femininity were assessed
through responses to the AAS, which instructed partici-
pants to indicate the extent that they would feel a series of
listed emotions, including “masculine” and “feminine.”
Age was significantly correlated with masculinity, r
(1,794) = .10, p = .004; thus, we ran all analyses control-
ling and not controlling for age to evaluate if there were
differing patterns of results. There were no differences;
thus, we reported results not controlling for age. We also
conducted analyses to assess whether the pattern of results
differed based on men’s sexual experiences (e.g., genders
and number of sexual partners) and we found that it did
not; thus, we reported results not controlling for sexual
experiences.
Hypotheses 1 through 3. To test effects of orgasm pre-

sence and orgasm history on men’s self-reported feelings
of masculinity, we conducted two-way analyses of var-
iance (ANOVAs). We also examined effects on feminin-
ity to establish the divergent validity of our experiment
(i.e., that masculinity, but not gender in general, was
affected) and SED to assess the convergent validity of
our experiment (i.e., that men’s sexual esteem, which is
theoretically connected to men’s masculinity, was
affected).
Hypothesis 4. To assess whether the word masculine loaded
on a construct related to achievement (e.g., feelings of
success, accomplishment, pride), we used an exploratory
factor analysis (EFA).
Hypotheses 5 through 7. To assess whether traditional ver-
sus egalitarian values (using the TESR), level of investment
in partner’s sexual pleasure (using the SRS to assess com-
munal/exchange approaches to sexual relations), and/or
masculine gender role stress (using the MGRS) moderated
the effect of women’s orgasm presence or absence on men’s
feelings of masculinity, we conducted moderation tests
using the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013).
Results
Do Women’s Orgasms Influence Men’s Masculinity?
Effect of IOE Condition on Masculinity (see Figure 1).
Results supported hypothesis 1, which proposed that success
conditions would lead to the highest masculinity scores. We
conducted a two-way ANOVA to compare the main effects and
interaction effect of orgasm presence (present versus absent)
and orgasm history (often versus rarely) on masculinity. We
found that men reported higher feelings of masculinity after

reading a vignette in which a female partner orgasmed versus a
vignette in which a female partner did not orgasm (p < .001);
that is, there was a significant main effect of orgasm presence,
F (1, 790) = 368.54, 95% CI [−1.72, −1.25], p < .001,
η2p = .32. There was also a significant main effect of orgasm
history, F (1, 790) = 8.00, 95% CI [.09, .55], p = .02, η2p = .01,
such that men reported higher feelings of masculinity after
reading that a woman had rarely orgasmed in the past versus
often orgasmed in the past. However, hypotheses 2 and 3 were
not supported; the effect size for orgasm history, η2p = .01, was
“small” per Cohen (1988), leading us to conclude that orgasm
history was noninfluential despite reaching statistical
significance. Thus, in the subsequent results for masculinity,
we compared the effects of the orgasm presence levels (present
versus absent). There was no significant interaction between
orgasm presence and orgasm history, F (1, 790) = 2.03, 95%
CI [−.57, .09], p = .16.
Divergent Validity: Effects of IOE Condition on
Femininity. To ensure that vignettes specifically
influenced masculinity, rather than feelings of gender in
general or masculinity and femininity, we asked men to
rate the extent to which they would feel feminine if they
experienced the vignette situation. A two-way ANOVA
showed that femininity scores did not significantly differ
between IOE conditions and were all equally low
(Ms = .24 to .28, SDs = .63 to .68), ps = n.s. This
showed that the effect was specific to masculinity, per
our predictions.
Convergent Validity: Effect of IOE Condition on SED
(see Figure 2). Research indicates that men’s investment in
women’s orgasms connects to men’s perceptions of themselves
as a good lover (Nicolson & Burr, 2003), suggesting that IOE
effects on SED scores should parallel findings with masculinity.
Results supported this, confirming that the IOE conditions

successfully manipulated the expected constructs: First, there
was a significant positive correlation between SED scores and
masculinity, r (785) = .63, p < .001. In addition, results for the
two-way ANOVAwere similar to masculinity results: Imagining
6
a female partner orgasming led to significantly higher sexual
esteem scores in men compared to imagining a female partner
not orgasming, F (1, 788) = 843.35, 95% CI [−9.21, −7.69],
p < .001, η2p = .52. There was a significant main effect of
orgasm
history, F (1, 788) = 474.94, 95% CI [.33, 1.85], p < .001, η2p =
.04, such that men had higher sexual esteem when asked to
imagine that their female partner had rarely orgasmed in the
past with previous partners versus often orgasmed in the past
with previous partners. There was no significant interaction
between orgasm presence and orgasm history on SED, F (1,
788) = 2.77, 95% CI [−.17, 2.00], p = .10.
Although there was a significant main effect of orgasm
history, it once again was a small effect size as per Cohen
(1988), η2p = .04, and thus noninfluential. Overall, the results
suggest that men feel higher sexual esteem after a woman
orgasms with them than when she does not, and that these
effects parallel those with masculinity.
Is Feeling Masculine Related to Feelings of
Achievement?
Results supported hypothesis 4; the item “masculine”
from the AAS loaded onto the accomplishment factor,

which is characterized by items associated with achievement
(e.g., successful, skilled, fulfilled).
EFA with maximum likelihood extraction (MLE) was
chosen as the appropriate factor analysis because we
theorized themes of success and failure as underlying
structures to the 36 AAS items. The analysis was con-
ducted using 783 participants who completed at least 95%
of the AAS, ensuring that no variable had more than 1%
missing data. Because there were minimal missing data
points, we imputed values using expectation maximiza-
tion, ensuring a complete data set on which to run the
EFA, as per Tabachnick and Fidell (2013). Analyses run
on the data with missing values and data with imputed
values produced the same pattern of results; thus imputed
values were retained. We used an Oblimin rotation with
Kaiser normalization because we hypothesized that item
groupings for orgasm-present conditions would be nega-
tively correlated with item groupings for orgasm-absent
conditions. Two empirical evaluations showed that the
AAS was appropriate for EFA: The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin
(KMO) was .97 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was sig-
nificant, X2 (630) = 21962.21, p < .001. The AAS
resolved into four factors: The accomplishment factor
(M = 1.77, SD = 1.27) consisted of 11 items (e.g.,
successful, content), explained 39.23% of the variance,
had an eigenvalue of 14.12, and was internally consistent
(α = .96); the negative affect factor (M = .76, SD = .85)
consisted of 15 items (e.g., ashamed, distressed),
explained 15.74% of the variance, had an eigenvalue of
5.66, and was internally consistent (α = .95); the focus
factor (M = 1.92, SD = 1.00) consisted of four items (e.g.,
attentive, determined), explained 6.07% of the variance,
had an eigenvalue of 2.19, and was internally consistent
(α = .75); and, the lack of concern factor (M = 0.34,

SD = .55) consisted of six items (e.g., indifferent, apa-
thetic), explained 3.88% of the variance, had an eigenva-
lue of 1.40, and was internally consistent (α = .71).
Accomplishment was significantly negatively correlated
with negative affect, r = −.54, p < .001, and lack of
concern, r = −.13, p < .001, and significantly positively
correlated with focus, r = .32, p < .001. Negative affect
was significantly positively correlated with focus, r = .11,
p = .003, and lack of concern, r = .38, p < .001. Focus
and lack of concern were not significantly correlated,
r = .03, p = .46.
Do Individual Traits Influence Masculinity Responses to
Women’s Orgasms?
Traditional versus Egalitarian Values. Having more
traditional or egalitarian values did not significantly
moderate the effect of orgasm presence on masculinity,
Figure 2. Effect of the Imagined Orgasm Exercise (IOE) on
sexual
esteem/depression (SED) scores, with standard error bars; *
indicates sig-
nificant mean difference in masculinity scores between absent
and present
IOE conditions at p < .001, partial eta squared = .52.
Figure 1. Effect of the Imagined Orgasm Exercise (IOE) on
mean mas-
culinity scores, with standard error bars; * indicates a
significant mean
difference in masculinity scores between absent and present IOE
conditions
at p < .001, partial eta squared = .32.

7
F (1, 749) = .87, p = .35; thus, hypothesis 5 was not
supported. However, there was a main effect of orgasm
presence on masculinity: Men who imagined that a
female partner orgasmed reported higher overall
masculinity than men who imagined that a female
partner did not orgasm, b = 1.62, SEb = .09,
t (749) = 19.04, 95% CI [1.45, 1.79], p < .001. Having
more traditional or egalitarian values also had a
significant main effect on masculinity: Men with higher
traditional values reported higher overall masculinity than
men with higher egalitarian values, b = −.01, SEb = .003,
t (749) = −3.98, 95% CI [−.02, −.01], p < .001.
Investment in Partner Pleasure via Communal/
Exchange Approaches to Sexual Relations. Men with a
communal approach to sex are characterized by an investment
in their partner’s sexual pleasure and satisfaction, whereas men
with an exchange approach to sex are characterized as being
interested in their partner’s sexual pleasure only to receive
reciprocated sexual favors. We explored hypothesis 6 using
scores from the SRS in an additive multiple moderation test to
examine whether having a communal and/or exchange
approach moderated the relationship between women’s
orgasms and masculinity. Hypothesis 6 was not supported;
moderation results were not significant for communal scores,
ΔR2 = .001, F (1, 761) = 1.55, p = .21, exchange scores,
ΔR2 = .001, F (1, 761) = 1.45, p = .23, or communal and
exchange scores combined, ΔR2 = .003, F (2, 761) = 1.69,
p = .19; thus, the SRS did not moderate the association. There
were significant main effects of communal and exchange
scores such that higher scores on each were associated with

higher masculinity, communal b = .02, SEb = .009, t
(761) = 2.59, 95% CI [.005, .04], p = .01; exchange b = .02,
SEb = .01, t (761) = 3.05, 95% CI [.008, .04], p = .002.
Masculine Gender Role Stress (see Figure 3).
Supporting hypothesis 7, there was a statistically
significant moderator effect of MGRS on the
relationship between orgasm presence and masculinity,
ΔR2 = .03, F (1, 731) = 30.01, 95% CI [.06, .03],
p < .001; high-MGRS men reported stronger feelings of
masculinity in response to a woman’s orgasm and weaker
feelings of masculinity in response to lack of a woman’s
orgasm than low-MGRS men. Results indicated that
imagining that a female partner orgasmed, b = 1.58,
SEb = .08, t (731) = 18.87, 95% CI [1.42, 1.74],
p < .001, and greater MGRS, b = .01, SEb = .002,
t (731) = 3.84, 95% CI [.004, .01], p < .001, were both
associated with higher feelings of masculinity, and the
interaction between orgasm presence and MGRS on
masculinity was significant, b = .02, SEb = .004,
t (731) = 5.48, 95% CI [.02, .03], p < .001.
We tested the simple slopes for the association between
orgasm presence and masculinity for low (−1 SD below the
mean), moderate (mean), and high (+1 SD above the mean)
levels of MGRS. Each of the simple slopes tests revealed a
significant positive association between orgasm presence
(dichotomous code: absent = 0, present = 1) and masculi-
nity, but orgasm presence was more strongly related to
masculinity for high levels of MGRS, b = 2.04, SEb = .19,
t (731) = 17.20, 95% CI [1.81, 2.28], p < .001, than for
moderate, b = 1.58, SEb = .08, t (731) = 18.87, 95% CI
[1.42, 1.75], p < .001, or low levels, b = 1.12, SEb = .19, t
(731) = 9.45, 95% CI [.89, 1.35], p < .001. (See Figure 3.)
Therefore, although all men experienced higher feelings of
masculinity after imagining that a partner orgasmed and

lower feelings of masculinity after imagining that a partner
did not, this was especially pronounced for men with high
MGRS.
Figure 3. Masculine Gender Role Stress (MGRS) significantly
moderated the effect of orgasm presence on mean masculinity
scores at p < .001, with
standard error bars.
8
Discussion
We investigated the association between women’s
orgasms and men’s masculinity. To do this, we assigned
men to one of four conditions in which men were asked
to imagine that a female partner either does or does not
orgasm with them after revealing a history of rarely or
often orgasming with previous partners. Men then rated
how masculine they would feel in the given
situation, among other words connected to success and
failure.
Women’s Orgasms Function as a Masculinity
Achievement for Men
Overall, the pattern of results supports that women’s
orgasms function as a masculinity achievement for men.
Across the measured trait variables (e.g., traditional ver-
sus egalitarian values, investment in partner’s sexual
pleasure, and masculine gender role stress), men felt
most masculine after imagining that a female partner

orgasmed with them versus imagining that she did not.
Tellingly, this effect was exacerbated for men with high
masculine gender role stress. In addition, the word mas-
culine loaded onto a factor characterized by accomplish-
ment, highlighting that masculine feelings operate as an
achievement.
Feeling Masculine in Response to Women’s Orgasms
Results supported our first hypothesis, that men would
feel more masculine after imagining that a female partner
orgasmed with them versus imagining that she did not.
However, results did not support (or only weakly supported)
our second and third hypotheses, that a woman’s sexual
history would elicit stronger or weaker feelings of masculi-
nity. Although men did feel more masculine after imagining
their female partner rarely orgasmed in the past, this effect
was small and statistically judged as noninfluential despite
reaching conventional levels of significance.
Clearly, imagining women’s current orgasms influenced
men’s feelings of masculinity, but women’s orgasm history
could be less important. This aligns with narratives that
credit men for heterosexual women’s orgasms, implying
that women’s orgasms are the male partner’s responsibility
regardless of a woman’s previous experiences. This could
have positive repercussions. For example, men might be
motivated to attend to women’s pleasure with zeal, no
matter the circumstance, because their own sexual skill is
perceived as the most important element in women’s experi-
ences of sexual pleasure. Conversely, there may be negative
repercussions. Men may dismiss important contextual fac-
tors and/or women’s own agency and experiences around
sexual pleasure. For example, if men will not hear a
woman’s insistence that she does not orgasm, does not
want to try to orgasm, or orgasms only via nonpartnered

stimulation (e.g., self-stimulation or toys), they may experi-
ence the absence of women’s orgasms as a personal failure
or even a challenge.
Trait Variables Influence Effects of Women’s Orgasms
on Men’s Masculinity
Our general prediction was that women’s orgasms func-
tion as a masculinity achievement for men, but we also
offered subhypotheses for how selected trait variables
would influence this link, which received partial support.
Results did not support our fifth and sixth hypotheses, that
traditional versus egalitarian values and/or investment in a
partner’s pleasure would influence men’s masculinity
responses to women’s orgasm presence. We had anticipated
that traditional men might see women’s orgasms as more of
a masculinity achievement compared to egalitarian men
because of their more traditional expectations for masculine
sexuality, or that they might not care about women’s plea-
sure generally and would therefore be unconcerned if an
orgasm did or did not occur. Alternatively, we anticipated
that egalitarian men might not link women’s orgasms to
their own masculinity, or they might see women’s orgasms
as more of a masculinity achievement than traditional men
because of the importance of women’s orgasms to more
liberal forms of masculinity. It may be the case that men
with either set of values experience women’s orgasm as a
masculinity achievement; that is, although traditional and
egalitarian perspectives frame women’s orgasms differently,
both framings may equally position women’s orgasms as an
important symbol of men’s masculine sexual behavior. This
may explain why men felt more masculine after imagining
that a woman orgasmed regardless of their traditional
values, egalitarian values, communal approaches, or
exchange approaches to sexual relations. Accordingly, tradi-

tional and egalitarian values or men’s investment in a part-
ner’s pleasure may influence the motivations for viewing
women’s orgasms as masculinity achievements for men
rather than the existence of the phenomenon itself.
Masculine gender role stress was significantly influential,
supporting our seventh hypothesis: High-stress men felt
more masculine when a woman orgasmed and less mascu-
line when she did not compared to low-stress men. Men
with high masculine gender role stress may experience
fragile masculinity, that is, a heightened sensitivity to poten-
tial masculinity buttresses or threats because of a sense of
precariousness or risk around masculinity. Thus, for high-
stress men, women’s orgasm presence or absence might be
experienced as especially validating or distressing, intensi-
fying feelings of masculinity achievement or failure, as
evidenced by our results.
There is also the possibility that the MGRS scale itself
acted as a masculinity threat, with high scores correspond-
ing with participants’ actual stress upon imagining situations
that challenge masculine gender roles. Research has shown
that men who feel their masculinity is threatened may be
9
more motivated to reassert their masculine status (Vandello
et al., 2008; Willer, Rogalin, Conlon, & Wojnowicz, 2013);
thus, imagining that a woman orgasmed could then function
as an especially strong, reasserting masculinity achieve-
ment, and imagining that a woman did not could make
them feel even less masculine. Although it is unclear

whether the MGRS acted as a baseline measure or a mas-
culinity threat, the results supported the same conclusion:
Women’s orgasms function as a masculinity achievement
for men, and this effect is pronounced for men with high
masculine gender role stress.
Implications
Although women’s orgasms may not be as women-cen-
tric as one might hope within a sex-positive framework, the
link between women’s orgasms and men’s masculinity
could have some positive effects. Certainly, many men
who experience women’s orgasms as a masculinity achieve-
ment may also be genuinely invested in women’s pleasure.
And men’s self-interest in women’s orgasms could result in
women experiencing more orgasms generally, compared to
beliefs that women are uninterested in orgasms or unable to
experience pleasure, or that women’s pleasure is unimpor-
tant in any way.
In some heterosexual encounters, this may be the case;
however, research has suggested that the increased expecta-
tions for women’s orgasms actually has a variety of negative
effects, one of the most serious being related to bodily
integrity and medicalization (Gilfoyle et al., 1992; Hartley
& Tiefer, 2003). Specifically, scholars have suggested that
increased attention to women’s orgasms decreases women’s
perceptions of sexual fulfillment by suggesting that women
are missing out on “good” sex when they do not have an
orgasm (Hartley & Tiefer, 2003; Lavie & Willig, 2005;
Lavie-Ajayi & Joffe, 2009). Lavie-Ajayi and Joffe (2009)
have argued that this social representation of orgasm as a
symbol of women’s sexual health has created space for
biomedical health “problems” when orgasm does not hap-
pen. The link between women’s orgasms and men’s mascu-
linity supports this by suggesting how women’s and men’s

desire to maintain men’s feelings of masculinity could
prompt medical misattributions of unfulfilled orgasm expec-
tations, namely, when the absence of women’s orgasm is
treated by both male and female partners as a clinical
problem leading to medical diagnoses of dysfunction and
disorder (Lavie-Ajayi & Joffe, 2009). For example, when
women’s orgasms become an arena for men’s masculinity
achievement, the absence of those orgasms means either a
“failure” of men’s skill or of women’s bodies (among other
possibilities); and given the need to shore up masculinity,
men (and women) may attribute absence of orgasm to
women’s bodies. Supporting this, women who seek medical
consultation for their own orgasm problems have described
their concerns as stemming from their male partner’s feel-
ings of sexual inadequacy (Lavie-Ajayi & Joffe, 2009),
indicating that women’s “failure” to orgasm may be
interpreted as a biomedical problem with their bodies, rather
than as an issue of compatibility or male skill. And although
the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013)
requires medical professionals to consider interpersonal
contextual factors and inadequate sexual stimulation before
making a diagnosis of “female orgasmic disorder,” it could
be that women do not report such contextual or stimulation
factors because this would undermine their male partner’s
masculinity.
Empirically demonstrating a link between women’s
orgasms and men’s masculinity also has important impli-
cations for conceptualizations of women’s sexual libera-
tion, among others. For example, our results could be
interpreted to support the notion that the increased atten-
tion to women’s orgasms, often lauded as the symbol of
women’s sexual liberation, actually reflects a repackaging
of women’s sexuality in the service of men. In this way,

updated sexual scripts delineating that men should give
orgasms to women still invoke continued traditional
notions of men as assertive sexual agents and women as
passive sexual recipients, and this positions women’s
orgasms in a way that continues to prioritize men’s needs
over women’s pleasure. In support, research demonstrates
that women fake orgasms to please their male partner
(Hite, 1976; Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010; Schaefer,
1973), suggesting that a desire to preserve a man’s ego
often trumps a woman’s ability to honestly communicate
her experience (Roberts et al., 1995). And research has
also shown that women are often hesitant to suggest
improvements or changes in a male partner’s technique
because they feel it would devastate his self-esteem
(Salisbury & Fisher, 2014). Thus, our findings support
scholars (largely feminist) who suggest that a reevaluation
of women’s orgasms as symbols of sexual health and
liberation is sorely needed (Hartley & Tiefer, 2003).
Limitations and Future Directions
There are many unanswered questions about links
between women’s orgasms and men’s masculinity, includ-
ing myriad additional personality and contextual factors.
For example, although we assessed a variety of trait vari-
ables, a number of others may be important, including
sexual experiences, relationship status, and compatibility
with specific partners. Our vignettes outlined a specific
situation that may or may not represent the variety of
experiences across and within participants. Accordingly,
future research might address how differing contextual
factors (e.g., hookups, relationships,) affect men’s mascu-
linity responses to women’s orgasm presence and absence.
In addition, our results represent anticipated feelings, as
vignettes asked men to imagine that they had experienced
the given situation; it would be useful to assess men’s

actual reactions to current and/or past real experiences.
Finally, our sample was largely young, heterosexual, and
White; therefore, our results may reflect a kind of
10
masculinity specific to men in socially dominant positions.
It would be fruitful to investigate how men of diverse
social identities (e.g., race, culture, class) experience
women’s orgasms in connection to their masculinity.
Overall, we hope that the findings of this study highlight
the nuanced repercussions of gendered motivations in sex-
ual encounters between women and men and the double-
edged implications of rhetoric about prioritizing women’s
sexual pleasure.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Z. Schudson, E.
Dibble, J. Rabinowitz, T. Conley, L. Cortina, N. Hubbs, and
all members of the van Anders laboratory.
Note
1 For the purposes of full reporting, we note that we included
the
Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory—46 (CMNI-46;
Parent
& Moradi, 2011) in the study. However, a surprising number of
participants in the study reported that they found its wording
confus-

ing (n = 47). In addition, we counterbalanced its presentation to
before
and after the IOE (to determine whether it was influenced by
condi-
tion), but premanipulation IOE scores differed in random ways.
Perhaps for these reasons—participant difficulty and order—
results
with the CMNI-46 were strikingly less clear than the single-
item
measure of masculinity, so we do not include further reports of
the
CMNI-46 in this article. In addition, participants’ attributions
for the
vignette situation were obtained via items asking men to rate
how
much they felt the situation was due to their own sexual skill,
their
female partner’s sexual skill, their own body, their female
partner’s
body, and/or the sexual compatibility between themselves and
the
female partner. Participants were also asked about feminist
identifica-
tion through a single question: “Do you identify as a feminist?”
Response options were Yes, No, or Not sure/Undecided. The
attribu-
tion and feminist identification questions were unrelated to our
hypotheses for this study and are not further discussed.
References
Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and
consequences: Using the
bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self‐reported
sexuality.
Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 27–35.

doi:10.1080/00224490309552164
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and
statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Association.
Arrighi, B. A., & Maume, D. J. (2000). Workplace
subordination and men’s
avoidance of housework. Journal of Family Issues, 21(4), 464–
487.
doi:10.1177/019251300021004003
Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (2001). The social dimension
of sex.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Berdahl, J. L. (2007). Harassment based on sex: Protecting
social status in the
context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review,
32(2),
641–658. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.24351879
Braun, V., Gavey, N., & McPhillips, K. (2003). The “fair deal”?
Unpacking
accounts of reciprocity in heterosex. Sexualities, 6(2), 237–261.
doi:10.1177/1363460703006002005
Brown, N. R., & Sinclair, R. C. (1999). Estimating number of
lifetime
sexual partners: Men and women do it differently. Journal of
Sex
Research, 36(3), 292–297. doi:10.1080/00224499909551999
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences

(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Eisler, R. M., & Skidmore, J. R. (1987). Masculine Gender Role
Stress: Scale
development and component factors in the appraisal of stressful
situations.
Behavior Modification, 11(2), 123–136.
doi:10.1177/01454455870112001
Flood, M. (2008). Men, sex, and homosociality: How bonds
between men
shape their sexual relations with women. Men and
Masculinities, 10
(3), 339–359. doi:10.1177/1097184X06287761
Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social
origins of
human sexuality. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Gilfoyle, J., Wilson, J., & Brown. (1992). Sex, organs, and
audiotape: A
discourse analytic approach to talking about heterosexual sex
and
relationships. Feminism and Psychology, 2(2), 209–230.
doi:10.1177/
095935359222010
Goldey, K. L., & van Anders, S. M. (2011). Sexy thoughts:
Effects of sexual
cognitions on testosterone, cortisol, and arousal in women.
Hormones
and Behavior, 59(5), 754–764. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.12.005
Goldey, K. L., & van Anders, S. M. (2012). Sexual arousal and
desire:
Interrelations and responses to three modalities of sexual

stimuli.
Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9(9), 2315–2329.
doi:10.1111/j.1743-
6109.2012.02845.x
Hartley, H., & Tiefer, L. (2003). Taking a biological turn: The
push for a
“female Viagra” and the medicalization of women’s sexual
problems.
Women’s Studies Quarterly, 31(1/2), 42–54. Retrieved from
http://
www.jstor.org/stable/40004551
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and
condi-
tional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New
York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Heiman, J. R., & Rowland, D. L. (1983). Affective and
physiological sexual
response patterns: The effects of instructions on sexually
functional and
dysfunctional men. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 27(2),
105–116.
doi:10.1016/0022-3999(83)90086-7
Hite, S. (1976). The Hite report. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Holland, J., Ramazanaglu, C., & Sharpe, S. (1994). Wimp or
gladiator:
Contradictions in acquiring masculine sexuality. London,
United
Kingdom: Tufnell.
Hughes, T. G., & Snell, W. E. (1990). Communal and exchange

approaches
to sexual relations. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and
Treatment, 3(2), 149–163. doi:10.1007/BF00850867
Kimmel, M. S. (1994). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear,
shame, and
silence in the construction of gender identity. In H. Brod & M.
Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities (pp. 119–141).
London,
United Kingdom: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781452243627.n7
Larsen, K. S., & Long, E. (1988). Attitudes toward sex-roles:
Traditional or
egalitarian? Sex Roles, 19(1–2), 1–12. doi:10.1007/BF00292459
Lavie, M., & Willig, C. (2005). “I don’t feel like melting
butter”: An
interpretative phenomenological analysis of the experience of
“inor-
gasmia.” Psychology and Health, 20(1), 115–128. doi:10.1080/
08870440412331296044
Lavie-Ajayi, M. (2005). “Because all real women do”: The
construction and
deconstruction of “female orgasmic disorder.” Sexualities,
Evolution, and
Gender, 7(1), 57–72. doi:10.1080/14616660500123664
Lavie-Ajayi, M., & Joffe, H. (2009). Social representations of
female
orgasm. Journal of Health Psychology, 14(1), 98–107.
doi:10.1177/
1359105308097950
Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003).
Sexual

harassment under social identity threat: The computer
harassment
paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5),
853.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.853
Machin, D., & Thornborrow, J. (2003). Branding and discourse:
The case
of cosmopolitan. Discourse and Society, 14(4), 453–471.
doi:10.1177/
0957926503014004003
Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. A. (1966). Human sexual
response. Boston,
MA: Little Brown.
McCarthy, B., & Ginsberg, R. L. (2008). Male hypoactive
sexual desire
disorder: A conceptual model and case study. Journal of Family
Psychotherapy, 18(4), 29–42. doi:10.1300/J085v18n04_03
11
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552164
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251300021004003
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.24351879
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1363460703006002005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551999
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01454455870112001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1097184X06287761
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/095935359222010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/095935359222010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.12.005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02845.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02845.x
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40004551
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40004551
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(83)90086-7
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00850867
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452243627.n7
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00292459
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870440412331296044
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870440412331296044
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616660500123664
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105308097950
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105308097950
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.853
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926503014004003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926503014004003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J085v18n04%5F03
Messner, M. A. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem
of mascu-
linity. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Shippee, S. K. (2010). Men’s and
women’s reports
of pretending orgasm. Journal of Sex Research, 47(6), 552–567.
doi:10.1080/00224490903171794
Nicolson, P., & Burr, J. (2003). What is “normal” about
women’s (hetero)
sexual desire and orgasm? A report of an in-depth interview
study.
Social Science and Medicine, 57(9), 1735–1745.
doi:10.1016/S0277-
9536(03)00012-1
Opperman, E., Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Rogers, C. (2014). “It

feels so good
it almost hurts”: Young adults’ experiences of orgasm and
sexual
pleasure. Journal of Sex Research, 51(5), 503–515. doi:10.1080/
00224499.2012.753982
O’Sullivan, L. F., & Allgeier, E. R. (1998). Feigning sexual
desire:
Consenting to unwanted sexual activity in heterosexual dating
rela-
tionships. Journal of Sex Research, 35(3), 234–243.
doi:10.1080/
00224499809551938
Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2011). An abbreviated tool for
assessing
conformity to masculine norms: Psychometric properties of the
Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46. Psychology of
Men
and Masculinity, 12(4), 339–353. doi:10.1037/a0021904
Philaretou, A. G., & Allen, K. R. (2001). Reconstructing
masculinity and
sexuality. Journal of Men’s Studies, 9(3), 301–321.
doi:10.3149/
jms.0903.301
Potts, A. (1998). The science/fiction of sex: John Gray’s Mars
and Venus in
the Bedroom. Sexualities, 1(2), 153–173.
doi:10.1177/1363460980010
02002
Potts, A. (2000). Coming, coming, gone: A feminist
deconstruction of
heterosexual orgasm. Sexualities, 3(1), 55–76. doi:10.1177/

136346000003001003
Potts, A. (2002). The science/fiction of sex: Feminist
deconstruction and the
vocabularies of heterosex. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Reich, W. (1982). Excerpts from The Function of the Orgasm.
In M. Brake
(Ed.), Human sexual relations: Towards a redefinition of sexual
politics
(pp. 70–71). New York: Pantheon Books.
Ritchie, L. L., & van Anders, S. M. (2015). There’s jealousy …
and then
there’s jealousy: Differential effects of jealousy on testosterone.
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 1(2), 231–246.
doi:10.1007/s40750-015-0023-7
Roberts, C., Kippax, S., Waldby, C., & Crawford, J. (1995).
Faking it: The
story of “Ohh!” Women’s Studies International Forum, 18(5/6),
523–532.
doi:10.1016/0277-5395(95)80090-C
Salisbury, C. M., & Fisher, W. A. (2014). “Did you come?” A
qualitative
exploration of gender differences in beliefs, experiences, and
concerns
regarding female orgasm occurrence during heterosexual sexual
inter-
actions. Journal of Sex Research, 51(6), 616–631. doi:10.1080/
00224499.2013.838934
Schaefer, L. C. (1973). Women and sex: Sexual experiences and
reactions
of a group of thirty women as told to a female psychotherapist.

New
York, NY: Pantheon.
Smith, T. W. (1992). Discrepancies between men and women in
report-
ing number of sexual partners: A summary from four countries.
Social Biology, 39(3–4), 203–211. doi:10.1080/19485565.1992.
9988817
Snell, W. E. Jr., & Papini, D. R. (1989). The Sexuality Scale:
An instrument
to measure sexual‐esteem, sexual‐depression, and
sexual‐preoccupa-
tion. Journal of Sex Research, 26(2), 256–263. doi:10.1080/
00224498909551510
Symonds, T., Roblin, D., Hart, K., & Althof, S. (2003). How
does
premature ejaculation impact a man’s life? Journal of Sex and
Marital Therapy, 29(5), 361–370. doi:10.1080/00926230390
224738
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate
statistics
(6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Theodore, P. S., & Basow, S. A. (2000). Heterosexual
masculinity and
homophobia: A reaction to the self? Journal of Homosexuality,
40(2),
31–48. doi:10.1300/J082v40n02_03
van Anders, S. M., Tolman, R. M., & Volling, B. L. (2012).
Baby cries and
nurturance affect testosterone in men. Hormones and Behavior,
61(1),

31–36. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.09.012
Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., &
Weaver, J.
R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and
Social
Psychology, 95(6), 1325–1339. doi:10.1037/a0012453
Wiederman, M. W. (1997). The truth must be in here
somewhere:
Examining the gender discrepancy in self‐reported lifetime
number
of sex partners. Journal of Sex Research, 34(4), 375–386.
doi:10.1080/
00224499709551905
Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual
scripts. The
Family Journal, 13(4), 496–502.
doi:10.1177/1066480705278729
Willer, R., Rogalin, C. L., Conlon, B., & Wojnowicz, M. T.
(2013).
Overdoing gender: A test of the masculine overcompensation
thesis.
American Journal of Sociology, 118(4), 980–1022. doi:10.1086/
668417
12
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490903171794
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00012-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00012-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.753982

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.753982
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551938
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551938
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021904
http://dx.doi.org/10.3149/jms.0903.301
http://dx.doi.org/10.3149/jms.0903.301
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136346098001002002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136346098001002002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136346000003001003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136346000003001003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40750-015-0023-7
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-5395(95)80090-C
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.838934
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.838934
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19485565.1992.9988817
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19485565.1992.9988817
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224498909551510
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224498909551510
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00926230390224738
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00926230390224738
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v40n02%5F03
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.09.012
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012453
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499709551905
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499709551905
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1066480705278729
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/668417
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/668417AbstractCurrent
StudyMethodParticipantsBaseline MeasuresHealth and
Demographics QuestionnaireSexuality
QuestionnaireRelationship QuestionnaireTraditional-Egalitarian
Sex Role Scale (Sample α = .91)Sexual Relationship
ScaleMasculine Gender Role Stress Scale (Sample α
= .91)Experimental ManipulationImagined Orgasm Exercise
(IOE)Dependent Variables1Affect and Arousal ScaleThe
Sexuality ScaleExclusion

QuestionsProcedureAnalysesResultsDo Women’s Orgasms
Influence Men’s Masculinity?Effect of IOE Condition on
Masculinity (see Figure�1)Divergent Validity: Effects of IOE
Condition on FemininityConvergent Validity: Effect of IOE
Condition on SED (see Figure�2)Is Feeling Masculine Related
to Feelings of Achievement?Do Individual Traits Influence
Masculinity Responses to Women’s Orgasms?Traditional versus
Egalitarian ValuesInvestment in Partner Pleasure via
Communal/Exchange Approaches to Sexual RelationsMasculine
Gender Role Stress (see Figure�3)DiscussionWomen’s Orgasms
Function as a Masculinity Achievement for MenFeeling
Masculine in Response to Women’s OrgasmsTrait Variables
Influence Effects of Women’s Orgasms on Men’s
MasculinityImplicationsLimitations and Future
DirectionsAcknowledgmentsNoteReferences

Case Study Continued – Week Five You have been perform.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Case Study Continued – Week Five You have been perform.docx

Similar to Case Study Continued – Week Five You have been perform.docx (20)

More from drennanmicah

More from drennanmicah (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Case Study Continued – Week Five You have been perform.docx