Romantic Partners, Friends, Friends with Advantages, and Casual Acquaintances As Sexual Partners

Romantic Partners, Friends, Friends with Advantages, and Casual Acquaintances As Sexual Partners

Wyndol Furman

Department of Psychology, 2155 S. Race Street, University of Denver, Denver, CO 80208

Laura Shaffer

Department of Psychology, University of Louisville class of Medicine, 401 E. Chestnut Street, Suite 600, Louisville, KY 40202


The goal of the study that is present to give an in depth study of intimate behavior with different sorts of lovers. A sample of 163 young grownups reported to their light nongenital, hefty nongenital, and vaginal sex with intimate lovers, buddies, and casual acquaintances. They described their sexual intercourse with “friends with benefits” as well as with friends as a whole. Adults had been almost certainly to take part in intimate behavior with intimate lovers, but sexual behavior additionally usually took place with some form of nonromantic partner. More teenagers involved in certain type of intimate behavior with casual acquaintances than with buddies with advantages. The frequencies of intimate behavior, nevertheless, had been greater with buddies with advantages than with buddies or casual acquaintances. Interview and questionnaire information revealed that friends with advantages had been typically buddies, not always. Nonsexual tasks had been additionally less normal with buddies with advantages than many other friends. Taken together, the findings illustrate the worthiness of differentiating among several types of nonromantic partners and differing quantities of intimate behavior.

Many research on sexual behavior have not considered the character regarding the relationship by which it does occur. Once the context associated with the relationship is considered, the investigation has dedicated to sexual behavior in intimate relationships or some subset of intimate relationships, such as for instance marriages or cohabitating couples (e.g. Kaestle & Halpern, 2007; O’Sullivan, Mantsun, Harris, & Brooks-Gunn, 2007). Yet the sexual behavior of young grownups and adolescents frequently does occur in other contexts. Such activity that is sexual been commonly referred to as casual intercourse, nonromantic intimate behavior, or “hook-ups ” The facts regarding the definitions differ, however they have actually the normal denominator of discussing behavior that is sexual uncommitted relationships (Weaver & Herold, 2000).

Sexual activity frequently does occur first in an enchanting or committed relationship, but more or less 25% of that time period, it first does occur with a pal, complete complete stranger, or somebody the individual is dating periodically (Elo, King, & Furstenberg, 1999; Manning, Longmore, & Giordano, 2000). Furthermore, about half of sexually active adolescents experienced sex having a partner that is nonromanticGrello, Welsh, & Harper, 2006; Manning, Giordano, & Longmore, 2006; Manning, Longmore, & Giordano, 2005). Approximately half of those incidents by having a partner that is nonromantic only one time (Manning, et al. 2006). Likewise, roughly 75–80% of university students reported “hooking up” or engaging in certain type of sex with some body just for an evening (England, Shafer, & Fogarty, 2007; Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000); 30% reported setting up with somebody when it comes to night and intercourse that is havingPaul, et al., 2000).

Many detectives haven’t differentiated among different lovers in the category that is general of or nonromantic intimate lovers. Some detectives have actually examined one particular group of nonromantic lovers ( e.g. Buddies or buddies with advantages ), however it is not yet determined if their findings are particular to that particular category or can be applied to many other kinds of casual or nonromantic intimate lovers.

Within the two studies that did consist of multiple groups (Grello, et al. 2006; Manning, et al. 2005), buddies had been the essential type that is typical of. Up to now, reasonably small is famous about variations in the activity that is sexual various lovers. Grello, et al. (2006), but, unearthed that more affectionate intimate behavior (e.g. Handholding, hugging, kissing, & massage treatments) happened if they had been buddies than if they had been acquaintances or strangers (Grello, et al. 2006). Thus, the restricted research implies that intercourse can vary across different types of nonromantic lovers.

Not merely have many detectives failed to distinguish among kinds of nonromantic lovers, but in addition they will have maybe not typically distinguished among several types of intimate behavior. Intercourse doesn’t occur in about 60% of hook-ups (Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000). Various intimate habits include various quantities of threat of sexually transmitted conditions. The the sort of intimate behavior that typical does occur additionally differs being a function associated with form of intimate partner (Grello et al,, 2006). Finally, genital, heavy nongenital, and light nongenital intimate behavior are differentially linked to representations of intimate relationships (Jones & Furman, in press). These findings claim that it’s important to differentiate among several types of intimate behavior.