Why men and women have sex

[Mars]

Cindy Meston, a clinical psychology professor at University of Texas and study co-author, says that the breakthrough study refutes a lot of popular gender stereotypes.

Assumptions that men only want sex for physical gratification and women want love are contradicted by the study results.

After interviewing 444 women and men between ages 17 and 52, the researchers were left with a list of 237 specific reasons people have sex. They then asked 1,549 college students to apply the reasons to their own personal experiences and rank them on a one-to-five scale.

Researchers discovered that both genders get horizontal for mostly the same motivations.

The top and bottom reasons for having sex that college-aged men and women gave University of Texas researchers:

Men's top 10 reasons:

1. I was attracted to the person.

2. It feels good.

3. I wanted to experience physical pleasure.

4. It’s fun.

5. I wanted to show my affection to the person.

6. I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.

7. I was “horny.”

8. I wanted to express my love for the person.

9. I wanted to achieve an orgasm.

10. I wanted to please my partner.

Women's top 10 reasons:

1. I was attracted to the person.

2. I wanted to experience physical pleasure.

3. It feels good.

4. I wanted to show my affection to the person.

5. I wanted to express my love for the person.

6. I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.

7. I was “horny.”

8. It’s fun.

9. I realized I was in love.

10. I was “in the heat of the moment.”

Men's bottom 5 reasons:

1. The person offered to give me drugs for doing it.

2. I wanted to give someone else a sexually transmitted disease.

3. I wanted to punish myself.

4. I wanted to break up my relationship.

5. I wanted to get a job.

Women's bottom 5 reasons:

1. I wanted to give someone else a sexually transmitted disease.

2. Someone offered me money to do it.

3. I wanted to get a raise.

4. It was an initiation rite to a club or organization.

5. I wanted to get a job.

[SANDRO43]

Cindy Meston, a clinical psychology professor at University of Texas and study co-author, says that the breakthrough study refutes a lot of popular gender stereotypes.

I don't know what stereotypes it maintains to refute, but it hardly sounds like a breakthrough study, rather a Cosmopolitan article .

Furthermore, the questions/answers mentioned there only impinge on the rational aspect of sex, and ignore its basic evolutionary and irrational aspect, the drive to procreate and thereby promote the survival of one's species .

[Mars]

Sandro, not your typical well thought out response based on a careful reading.

First, the sterotypes refuted are clearly spelled out in the second sentence of my OP.

Second, the first group identified 237 reasons and the second group were given these 237 reasons to choose from.  So undoubtedly your 'irrational' aspects were listed among the 237 choices.  But obviously, none of those made it into the top 10 lists.

[SANDRO43]

Assumptions that men only want sex for physical gratification and women want love are contradicted by the study results.

Men's top 10 reasons:
1. I was attracted to the person.
2. It feels good.
3. I wanted to experience physical pleasure.
4. It’s fun

Men's 4 top answers don't seem to dispel the stereotype much, IMHO .

On the other hand, I don't know how much the "women want love" stereotype could still have been widespread in the USA - where I assume the study was conducted - given the past decades of 'female liberation'.

Sorry, I can't see much of a "breakthrough" in what you quoted. Maybe the full report contains more significant details and considerations, as one could expect from a "study" and not from what looks more like a magazine questionnaire .

For instance, the most popular answer ("I was attracted to the person" - by what? physical aspect? personality? both?) is ambiguous, and could have been interpreted quite differently by responders.

[BC]

Men's 4 top answers don't seem to dispel the stereotype much, IMHO .

On the other hand, I don't know how much the "women want love" stereotype could still have been widespread in the USA - where I assume the study was conducted - given the past decades of 'female liberation'.

Sorry, I can't see much of a "breakthrough" in what you quoted. Maybe the full report contains more significant details and considerations, as one could expect from a "study" and not from what looks more like a magazine questionnaire .

For instance, the most popular answer ("I was attracted to the person" - by what? physical aspect? personality? both?) is ambiguous, and could have been interpreted quite differently by responders.

Sandro,

The devil is in the details....

Top 3 for both sexes:

Male:

1. I was attracted to the person.

2. It feels good.

3. I wanted to experience physical pleasure.

Female:

1. I was attracted to the person.

2. I wanted to experience physical pleasure.

3. It feels good.

Note that 'Man' or 'Woman' was not mentioned at all...

[Mars]

Sandro, you keep changing the discussion as you go along.

First you said: "I don't know what stereotypes it maintains to refute."

So I told you to re-read where it clearly told the sterotype.

Now you go on to something else!!  :-))

[SANDRO43]

First you said: "I don't know what stereotypes it maintains to refute." So I told you to re-read where it clearly told the sterotype.

My bad, I missed it the first time through.

Now you go on to something else!!  :-))

Not really, only going into the details after being pointed out what the stereotypes were.

The devil is in the details....
Male: Female:
Note that 'Man' or 'Woman' was not mentioned at all...

So, what's your point? I may be wrong, but was under the impression that Man/Male and Woman/Female are one and the same thing, unless you bring tender age into the equation - or bisexuality or animals or plants.

However, you did post:

Men's top 10 reasons:
Women's top 10 reasons:

[Shostakovich]

I don't know what stereotypes it maintains to refute, but it hardly sounds like a breakthrough study, rather a Cosmopolitan article .

Furthermore, the questions/answers mentioned there only impinge on the rational aspect of sex, and ignore its basic evolutionary and irrational aspect, the drive to procreate and thereby promote the survival of one's species .

What a concept - that the sex drive expresses a certain instinctual urge.  The choice aspect is fairly moot. I'd like to suggest that the reasons people ascribe to their behaviors is not a very good guide to their true motivations - in this regard most are very unconscious.  The pack animal mentality sets in.  We just follow a different leader these days.  If that researcher could go back 100 years I think a very different survey result would emerge.

In any event, just because someone with a Ph.D. tabulates numbers with a spreadsheet program does not make it a science.      

[Vaughn]

6. I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.

Heck, we're not too proud to admit that #6 suits us just fine.

[docetae]

Question : Re: Why men and women have sex

My bad, I missed it the first time through.

[RussianWind]

In any event, just because someone with a Ph.D. tabulates numbers with a spreadsheet program does not make it a science.      

I feel he will be nominated for the Ig Nobel Award. Has good chances actually.

[Gator]

The anthropological studies of the uniqueness of many aspects of  human sexuality are far more fascinating than this Cosmo survey crap.

[BC]

The anthropological studies of the uniqueness of many aspects of  human sexuality are far more fascinating than this Cosmo survey crap.

Yes, interesting.

Next time you go to the Zoo Gator, watch the monkeys and start adding things like shame, inhibitions and social/religious morality into your mental picture.

[Gator]

Yes, interesting.

Next time you go to the Zoo Gator, watch the monkeys and start adding things like shame, inhibitions and social/religious morality into your mental picture.

Of course,  monkeys don't wear clothes. 


And that is just one family (tribe).  How would they interact if 100 tribes were sharing the same territory?

Anyway, BC I will be happy to sit down with you any day and pick fleas and lice from each other's body (a sign of affection).

I was thinking more about how evolution has made humans unique with regard to stealth estrus, intensity and frequency of female orgasms, willingness to refuse sex, slow development of babies, constant availability of female for sex, brain size (a large consumer of calories), early menopause (realtive to other animals), etc.

[RussianWind]

Anyway, BC I will be happy to sit down with you any day and pick fleas and lice from each other's body (a sign of affection).

Interesting. Why do you want to pick fleas with BC? 

[Mars]

Despite the criticisms here, I think the survey results do provide something interesting and even new.

I believe most people would have thought that the top 10 reasons given by females would be along the lines of 1) to express my deep love, 2) to give myself totally to the man of my dreams, 3) to create a child with my beloved . . .  etc., etc.

On the other hand, I believe Gator has a good point for a completely different topic and slant on this.  The idea that humans have evolved so much that females desire to have sex year round rather than just at the time of their 'periods of heat' as other animals do, is quite interesting.  And many other related interesting developments.

Another very interesting topic is that somewhere along the line, humans developed this idea of pairing up a single male and a single female.  In the animal world, usually a dominate male has all the females in the group.

Perhaps some of you know the background to this development.  My 'off the top of my head' idea is that tribes realized there were many unhappy men who had not a woman, so steps were taken to limit the women available to the dominate males.

It is also possible that this latter topic has some relevance to the hot button issue of WOVO vs WMVM.

[Gator]

The idea that humans have evolved so much that females desire to have sex year round rather than just at the time of their 'periods of heat' as other animals do, is quite interesting. 

Human babies are slow to develop, much due to the size and power of our brains.  In contrast, many animals when born are capable of walking the first day; the mama becomes an empty nester in weeks.  Thus, something needs to keep the human male around mama to contribute to the rearing of this totally helpless offspring.  Sex is that attraction. 

As one of my friends says, if women did not have that treasure between their legs, there would be a bounty on their heads.  My friend has not had good experiences with marriage.
 

[SANDRO43]

Another very interesting topic is that somewhere along the line, humans developed this idea of pairing up a single male and a single female...Perhaps some of you know the background to this development.

Only conjectural, paleoanthropology can offer no clues in this regard, except that stable couples seem to have appeared as early as Neanderthal times.

As Gator suggested, the 'abnormally' long duration of the necessary period of human parental care may have played a role in causing long partnerships, also considering that ancient women typically produced an almost continuous string of offspring while fertile - infant mortality being very high and contraceptive methods rather 'primitive' .

usually a dominaNT male has all the females in the group.

There are many exceptions to that - e.g. dolphins among mammals, a lot of bird species, etc. are single-maters.

[Misha]

As Gator suggested, the 'abnormally' long duration of the necessary period of human parental care may have played a role in causing long partnerships, also considering that ancient women typically produced an almost continuous string of offspring while fertile - infant mortality being very high and contraceptive methods rather 'primitive' .

This is not quite true. Hunters and gatherers tended to have few children. This was often the result of long periods where sex was taboo. Also, even though breastfeeding is far from a perfect form of birth control, it does decrease the chances of becoming pregnant. Finally, if a woman does not have enough body fat, it will be difficult to conceive. Populations throughout time always had ways of controlling the number of children being born, and it has little to do with being 'primitive.' High birth rates were encouraged in agricultural communities where you tended to have high mortality rates and where the labor of the children was essential to the well-being of the family.

[SANDRO43]

This is not quite true. Hunters and gatherers tended to have few children. This was often the result of long periods where sex was taboo.

Care to offer some anthropological evidence for those statements ?

[Misha]

Care to offer some anthropological evidence for those statements ?

"People refer to this as the "problem" of teenage pregnancy, but from a long-term biological perspective, the real problem is that nutritional prosperity has undermined biological safeguards that evolved against inopportune conception. Ovulation--and hence female fertility--requires a certain minimum of body fat. In foraging societies with lifestyles similar to those of prehistoric humans, any gift in her early teens who has acquired enough body fat to trigger ovulation must be living in an unusually productive habitat, surrounded by kin willing to support and provide for her. In Africa and South America, the average woman in a traditional foraging society is in her mid-twenties before she starts to gather her own full share of food, much less the surplus needed for any children in her social group. Even when they engage in hard work, such as digging tubers, these young women harvest less food per hour than senior women--forty years or older--generally do."

Not quite anthropological, but here is the online source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_8_108/ai_56183381/

You can also read "Natural Fertility, Birth Spacing, and the "First Demographic Transition" in American Anthropologist Vol. 87, No. 3 (Sep., 1985), pp. 650-653 : http://www.jstor.org/stable/678885.

Or, if you prefer wikis, feel free to consult the Hunter-Gatherer wiki: http://foragers.wikidot.com/female-reproductive-adaptation. They look at the causes for low birth rates among the !Kung San in southern Africa.

[SANDRO43]

Not quite anthropological, but here is the online source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_8_108/ai_56183381/

Since the Neolithic period, and especially over the last several centuries, the age of menarche (the onset of menstrual cycling) in the human female has been falling. Girls are capable of becoming pregnant younger than ever before -- closer to twelve than to twenty. In eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe, girls reached menarche at about the age of seventeen, and conception would not have been possible for some time after that."

I don't know how they could have determined a Neolithic late-fertility figure, much less a Paleolithic one . Given the short life expectancy and high mortality rates of those ancient times (http://energy.ruc.dk/Neanderthal%20Demography.pdf), had that been true we might not be here at all .

You can also read "Natural Fertility, Birth Spacing, and the "First Demographic Transition" in American Anthropologist Vol. 87, No. 3 (Sep., 1985), pp. 650-653 : http://www.jstor.org/stable/678885.

I can only get the last page of the article from your link, and that doesn't seem much applicable to our discussion.

Or, if you prefer wikis, feel free to consult the Hunter-Gatherer wiki: http://foragers.wikidot.com/female-reproductive-adaptation. They look at the causes for low birth rates among the !Kung San in southern Africa.

The !Kung San are primitive, but they are also a contemporary population, no telling when/how/why they have evolved their current customs. I don't think they can be assumed as a totally reliable prototype for much older human populations.

[Gator]

Hunters and gatherers tended to have few children. This was often the result of long periods where sex was taboo.

You have responded to Sandro about the first statement.  The 'taboo' statement is bewildering. 

[Misha]

You have responded to Sandro about the first statement.  The 'taboo' statement is bewildering. 

Many societies have, for example, post-partum sex taboos whereby sex is prohibited for varying periods of time after the birth of a child. Some societies prohibited sex after childbirth for a year or longer. Feel free to peruse this old, but still legitimate, source: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3773112.

[Gator]

Some societies prohibited sex after childbirth for a year or longer.

Just for the woman, not the man.  Sounds fair.   Too bad that the Catholics changed this. 

Evidently this practice never made it as far as the Celtics.  A humorous expression for two children having the same birth year is 'Irish twins.'