Communication and Sexual Desire 1998 - Metts Et Al
Communication and Sexual Desire 1998 - Metts Et Al
Communication and Sexual Desire 1998 - Metts Et Al
Sexual Desire
Sandra Metts and Susan Sprecher
lllit~oisSfate ~J~ri~~(*rsify
Nor111a1,1lli11ois
Pamela C. Regan
Cal!fow~iaSfatr U t r i l ~ r s i t r L o sAl[qcks
Los Algrles, Califor~orrric~
tion both as signals to coordinate sexual behavior and as response patterns that pro- ification from the broader interpersonal contexts in which they are embedded. Ac-
' nlote pair bonding. The latter perspective is characterized by a view of sexual de- cording to Levine, these contexts r~iightinclude the quality of the t~onsexualrc.l;~-
sire as a subjective psychological state influenced as much by interpersonal and so- tionship, the reasons for engaging in sexual episodes (self-regulating or partner-reg-
cial influences as by perceptions of physiological arousal. The corresponding view ulating), and transference fmm past attachments that can increase o; diminish sexual
of emotion is a complex psychological state, generated from interpretations of sit- motivation.
uational cues, and manifested as behaviors that are consistent with this interpreta- Defining sexual desire as a subjective psychological state not only distinguishes
tion. Communication assumes a more central position, not only as the ineans of ex- it from the physiological state of sexual arousal but also from the behaviors of sex-
pressing sexual desire and complicated emotional states, but also as the mechanism ual activity. Research indicates that young adult men and women report having en-
for negotiating the relational implications of sexual activity a ~ i demotional mean- gaged in sexual activity without feeling sexual desire (e.g., Beck, Bozman, & Qual-
ings. trough, 1991). Indeed, people may engage in sexual activity for a number of reasons
In order to frame the perspectives discussed in this chapter, we begin by provid- other than for the satiation of their own desire. They may do so to avoid rejecting
ing a working definition of sexual desire. We then consider briefly the complicat- their partner's advances and hurting their partner's feelings, to prove that they care
ed question of whether sexual desire is an emotion.,. for their partner and find him or her attractive, to assure themselves of their own
virility or attractiveness, to conceive offspring, o r to express feelings of closeness,
warmth, commitment, and intimacy. Conversely, the absence of sexual activity does
CONCEPTUALIZING SEXUAL DESIRE not necessarily reflect a lack of sexual desire, even among romantically involved
couples. For example, fatigue, travel schedules, and the demands of childre11 may
What Is Sexual Desire? diminish sexual activity. Some relationship partners nlay abstain from sexual inter-
course during times of menstruation or pregnancy due more to cultural proscrip-
Traditional approaches to sexual desire tend to limit the concept to its physiologi- tions than to personal inclinations (e.g., Kenny, 1973).
cal component, viewing it simply as a state of arousal or a biological drive that is In sum, sexual desire is considered by most contemporary sex researchers to be
reduced through such instrumental actions as masturbation or intercourse (e.g.,Tee- a psychological, subjective state. It is considered to be distinct from physiologi-
van & Smith, 1967). Although neurochemical/genitaI arousal is generally consid- cal/genital arousal, subjective sexual arousal (i.e., the awareness that one is genital-
ered one aspect of sexual desire, it is no longer thought to be sufficient for, nor iso- ly and physiologically aroused), and sexual activity, although in actual practice sex-
nlorphic with, this sexual experience. Rather, sexual desire is considered to be a ual desire usually precedes, sometimes accompanies, and may even follow, sexual
multifaceted construct, experienced as a unitary subjective state, but varying in in- arousal and activity. Sexual desire is experienced as an interest in sexual objects or
tensity and quality as a result of the interaction of intrapsychic, interpersonal, and activities, and/or as a wish, intention, or willingness to seek out sexual partners
situational influences. and/or to engage in sexual activities (e.g., Bancroft, 1988; Kaplan, 1979; Regan &
Illustrative of this more integrated view of sexual desire is the description offered Berscheid, 1995). When directed toward a specific other person, desire is manifest-
by Levirie (1984, 1987). H e defines sexual desire as a "propensity to behave sexual- ed as sexual attraction.
ly" resulting fmnl the interaction among biological drive, cognitions that generate Interestingly, common interpretations of the term sexual desire among young
the t l ~ i s to
l ~ behave sexually, and psychological processes that yield a t v i l l i t ~ ~ t r e c(nio-
s adults are quite consistent with the current scholarly discussion. When Regan arid
tivation) to behave sexually. Changes in any of these three aspects influence the like- Berscheid (1996) asked college students to define sexual desire in open-ended re-
lihood that sexual desire will be experienced and the intensity with which it will sponses, very few defined it in terms of psychological arousal (4.4%) o r sexual ac-
be felt. Thus, the spontaneous n~anifestationsof genital excitement associated with tivity (2.2%). Most (86.8%)) referred to sexual desire as a motivational state (e.g.,
sexual drive can be diminished by such factors as age, grief, illness, or medication. longing, urge, need, or attraction). In addition, many respondents (28.6%)referred
The wish to behave sexually (even in the absence of drive) can be stinlulated by the to it specifically as an emotional state (e.g., emotional attraction, or a feeling) or as
motivation to feel loved or valued, to feel masculine or feminine, to please one's part of an emotional syndrome (love or passion).
partner, and so forth. The wish not to have sex (even in the presence of drive) niay It appears, then, that the notion of sexual desire, both in current scholarship and
stem from the conviction that it would be nora ally wrong, or fronl the fear of preg- in the phenomenological experiences of Inen and women, is a much broader con-
nancy or disease. Finally, although the willingless to have sex can be itiduccd by struct than the physiological arousal or sexual activity associated with reproduction.
such factors as one's own sexual drive, the verbal and lionverbal behavior of a part- Whether it is, strictly speaking, an emotional state or not depends up011 how one
ner, voyeuristic experiences, and attraction, these inducements are subject to mod- defines emotion.
,
. an Emotion?
Is Sexual Desire bedded within relational interpretive frames. Thus, to feel sexual desire for anotl~-
er person in the absence of otlier elnotions reliders it base (e.g., "~nerelylust"),
Emotion is perhaps one of the most difficult cor~structsto define (Metts & Row- whereas to feel sexual desire as part of the romantic love complex renders it tmns-
ers, 1994). Definitions are shaped not only by the disciplinary lens of the scholars formative and almost spiritual. In fact, although sexual desire exi5t.s independel~tly
investigating it, but also by the cultural and historic assumptions that prevail during of romarltic or passionate love, these affective states, at least in contemporary West-
ally particular perioci of at~alysis(Averill, 1992; Solonio~i,1903; Stearr~r.109.3). ern society, take tl~cirvcry character fro111tlie preselice of ~CXLI;II cicsire (scr Aron
Therefore, we should not be surprised to find that some scholars consider sexual & Amn, 1991;Hatficld & I\apson, 1093 for reviews). As Oatley ( 1 093) ~tiltcs:"W~I;II
desire to be an emotion whereas others do not. we see when we or an acquaintance falls in love, what we imagine in such circunl-
For scholars who consider psychological motivational states to be emotions, sex- stances, or what we resonate to when read a love story is a con~plexof parts, in-
ual desire constitutes an emotion (Everaerd, 1988). For example, the sex researcher cluding sexual desire, the aesthetic attraction to the other, and the altruism" (p. 340).
Bertocci (1 988) coined the term "lust-sex" to represent "the emotion experienced In a similar vein is the now famous quote by Berscheid (1988), who remarked that
by a person as a qualitative impetus whose meaning-objective is usually a member if forced to define romantic love by "a firing squad who would shoot if not given
of the opposite sex deemed attractive in ways that facilitate sexual advances and the correct answerV9'she would have to say, "It's about 90 percent sexual desire as yet
intercourse" (p. 222). Similarly, DeLamater (1991) classified sexual desire as an not sated" (p. 373).
emotion based on three features that it shares with classical definitions of emotion: Empirical support for the association between sexual desire and love is evidelit
(a) the presence of characteristic patterns of physiological arousal, (b) the inter- in the prototypical analyses of emotion terms conducted by Shaver and his col-
pretation of this arousal as sexual, and (c) the activation of cognitive schema that leagues (Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, & O'Connor, 1987; Shaver, Wu, & Schwartz,
contain learned response tendencies (typically sexual actions when the situation 1992). In both Italian and American samples, Shaver et al. (1992) found that the
allows). love prototype contained some element of sexual desire, expressed variously as
By contrast, conservative views of emotion tend to exclude sexual desire, more arousal, lust, passion, desire, infatuation, and longing. It should be no surprise that
or less explicitly. For example, scholars who distinguish between the drive and affect the presence of sexual desire for another person is often experienced as romantic
systenls consider sexual desire to be among the biological drives (e.g., Izard, 1990, love. Nor should it be a surprise that retrospective accounts often recast the vcry
1993) rather than among the affects. Likewise, scholars who distinguish between same enlotional experience as nothing more than lust in the wake of a failed rela-
rnotivational states (i.e., goal-directed intentions) and the consequences or out- tionship (Harvey, Weber, & Orbuch, 1990; White, Fishbein, & Rutstein, 1981).
comes of rnotivational states, consider sexual desire to be the antecedent condition For the purposes of this chapter, it is not necessary to resolve the definitional
of emotion rather than an emotion per se. By implication, if the motivation to seek question of whether sexual desire is or is not an emotion. In reality, there are prob-
sexual activity were satisfied, positive eniotions would result; if not satisfied, nega- ably occasions when sexual desire is experienced as a diffuse, unfocused sense of
tive emotions would result (Harris, 1993; Mclntesh & Martin, 1992; see also longing for sexual contact that is no more emotional than a fantasy or a daydreanl.
Lazarus, Coyne, & Folkman, 1984; Roseman, 1984, for a discussion of motivation On other occasions, sexual desire may be intense, focused, and experienced as a pas-
and affect).The various definitions of emotion known collectively as appraisal the- sion that most people would consider emotional, and that some would label lust
ories would also probably not consider sexilal desire to be an emotion because no and some would label love. Indeed, there may be individual differences in intensi-
particular pattern of appraisal has been found to generate the experience of sexual ty of subjective arousal and responses to feelings of sexual desire (Christopher &
desire (Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989). On the other hand, it is not inconsis- Roosa, 1991; 'Sirllpson & Cangestad, 1991) as well as in the tendency to orient to
tent with appraisal theory to speculate that if arousal in the presence of another per- sexual desire as the defining paranieter of love as is evident in individual diffcre~~cc
son were attended to (atteritiollal activity), perceived to be a pleasant sti~nulus(va- in love stylec (see Taraban, Hendrick & Hendrick, Chapter 12, this volunic).
lence), and considered relevant to an individual's goals (relevance appraisal), the state For the purposes here, it is simply important to acknowledge that any perspcc-
of sexual attraction or lust niight be considered a positive emotional state (Ellsworth tive on the association among sexual desire, emotion, and con~n~unication is stro~~g
& Sn~ith,198.9; Stnith & Ellsworth, 1985). ly influenced by definitional assumptions. For that reason, we have divided the re-
Firlally, for scliolars who take the positiol~that etnotions are essentially social niainder of this chapter into two general sections. The first is a sulnlliary of-
constructions (Epstein, 1984; Oatley, 1993), sexual desire niight be considered an approaches to sexual desire, emotion, and communication that coalesce utider th~.
e l ~ i o t i oin~any
~ culture that recog~iizesit as such. la coiltetnporary Western society, getieril rubric of reproduction.Tlie second, arid 111oreelaborated, section is a ~11111-
although sexual desire is typically considered to be an en~otiorialstate, attitudes to- lllary of approaches to sexual desire that recogt~izethe psycl~ologicalquality of scs-
ward its legitimacy are complicated by the fact that sexual meanings are deeply enl- ual desire and situate it within sociological, relational, and com~i~unicative systcll~\.
358 S. Metts, S. Sprecher, and P. C. Regan 13. Comtilunication and Sexual Desire 359
Moore & Butler, 1989) provide support for this contention. Not only was Moore
BIOLOGICAL O R REPRODUCTIVE PERSPECTIVES
able to categorize types of nonverbal behaviors most likely to precede the approacli
The recognition that sexual desire, emotion. and conirnunication are functionally of a niale to a female in a bar setting, but she also delilonstrated that these bcllav-
interdependent is not new. However, traditional biological discussions tend to view iors were largely absent in settings where men were absent (e.g.; a library and a
reproduction as the nexus where interest in all three constructs converge. In par- women's club). Moore concludes that although men appear to initiate courtship be-
ticular, sexual desire is viewed as a biological drive or state of arousal that may lead cause they make the first overt approach, women actually trigger the advancc
to some form of sexual expression (e.g., sexual intercourse). Enlotion and conmiu- through nonverbal displays of readiness, such as extended eye gaze, sniiling, atid
nication are incorporated into the discussion by virtue of their role in coordinat- open posture.
ing mating and facilitating pair bonding.
Facilitating Pair Bonding
Coordinating Mating
Other theorists have argued that the function of emotion displays to signal repro-
1 ductive intentions may have facilitated sexual contact, but it does not explain the
O n e long-standing conceptualization of emotion is as patterned states of physio- I
logical arousal manifested in universally recognizedfaciaLexpressio4e.g-a= evolution of akban- kitr&ml& m-4;
--------
1984; Ekman, Levenson, & Friesen, 1983). Although there is continued dispute over
? - - - -Tomkins,
- 1980, 1984), the drive system (including sexual desire) functions like the
whether emotional states correspond to distinctive patterns of arousal in the vis- i cognitive, behavioral, and perceptual systems d o a s a source of survival-relevant
I information for the affect system. The affect system then provides the impetus for
ceral system (i.e., internal organs) (Buck, 1980, 1984) or to patterns of change in
neural firing (i.e., suddenness and intensity) (Tomkins, 1984), there is agreement adaptive action. According to Tomkins (1984), the drives are inert without the ani-
that arousal is experienced as a component of the primary emotions (e.g., interest, plification of the affects, whereas "the affects are sufficient motivators in the absence
fear, anger, disgust, sadness, happiness, and surprise). Emotion is presumed to occur of drives" (p. 165). In terms of reproduction, the biological drive to copulate pro-
without the need for cognitive appraisal and therefore is considered to be one of vided hunlans with the motivation to engage in sexual activity, but provided no "in-
the earliest and most fundamental forms of communication through facial displays. structions" for the pair-bonding behavior necessary for the survival of the offspring.
As Ekman (1984) argues, "If there is no distinctive universal facial expression asso- Only when framed by the behavioral response patterns associated with the positive
ciated with a given state, which functions as a signal, I propose that we not call that emotions ofjoy and affection could sexual pleasure lead to intimacy behaviors be-
state an emotion" (p. 330). tween partners and caregiving behaviors toward offspring. As described by lzard
In this characterization, emotions are linked to human reproduction by virtue (1993):
of their communicative potential. For example, Buck (1984) argues that, unlike the The joy experience is different &om sensory pleasure, but the latter ofien leads to the for-
mating of rudimentary organisms that was accomplished without the need for so- mer, as when the culmirlation of sexual or postprandial pleasure increases intimacy and
cial organization, human mating required extended coordination. Emotional ex- leads to enjoyable social interactioti. Openness is ofien heightened in such situations,and
openness can contribute to the strengtlienitig of social bonds. Social bonds atid the so-
pression facilitated this goal by providing visible manifestations of internal states and
cial support they provide contribute a highly adaptive nlechanisnl that can easily be con-
intentions. Although humans eventually evolved a number of socially regulative ceived as a n a d u a n t a g ~ i n e . ~ a l u c i d v d q x n m
-- .U)-----
, +
- ~ e + , lngkdevelsof
~ symDoltcoTmunicat16ii
~ ~ ~ ~ d
(e.g., verbal language), Buck maintained that "perhaps the most basic motivation- Although this characterization tends to be advanced by emotion theorists, it is
al/en~otionalsystem that went beyond a solitary, virtually autotilatic process in- consistent with discussions of human sexuality in other fields. For example, in his
volved sexual reproduction" (p. 31). Thus, sexual contact was facilitated by visible sociological theory of human sexuality, Reiss (1986, 1989) contends that the irn-
expressions of interest and positive affect that signaled the desire to approach as well portance placed on sexuality across cultures is due less to its reproductive function
as to be approached. than to its role in facilitating pleasure and self-disclosure. Pleasure and self-disclo-
Uuck (1984) notes that the legacy of this fundanlental signaling Function is still sure are integrally related in scxrial experience: "Experiencitig intense physical plea-
evident in nlodern-day flirtation rituals. Despite cultural variation in display rules, sure it1 the presence of another person reveals parts of oneself which are not gen-
he contends that across cultures, flirtatio~irituals still function to indicate sexual erally known even by one's close friends. Sexual partners thus reveal their emotions
readiness, or alternatively, to indicate sexual nonavailability. Observations of female and responses in their sexual interactions and thereby learn more about each otli-
nonverbal solicitation cues conducted by Moore and her colleagues (Moore, 1985; er" (1989, p. 10). Ikeiss nlai~ltainsthat, all things being equal, such disclosure is likc-
360 S. Metts. S. Sprecher, and I? C. ILegnti
ly to lead to additional revelation in other aspects of one's life. The result is the de- tional schemata" which can then be categorized according to ordinary language la-
velopment and strengthening of intinlate pair bonds. bels (see Guerrero, Andersen, & Trost, Chapter 1, this volume, for a discussio~~ of
In sum, traditional biological approaches to liriki~igsexual desire, emotion, and prototypes). Like all schemata, et~iotiorialschemata are perceptual templates that or-
con~nlunicationas they relate to reproductive advantages and cultural universals ganize social information, direct attention to salient situational cites, and provide a
tend to emphasize emotion's communicative function in signaling interest and co- model of potential responses. However. the automatic responses of the schenlata
ordinating mating, and emotion's facilitative function in stimulating intimate com- system are subject to control and direction from the "conceptual system" that con-
munication, self-disclosure, and ultimately the attachment patterns of pair bonding. tains the cognitions that people hold about their emotional states, their under-
Relational approaches are not necessarily inconlpatible with this perspective, but standings of causes and consequences, and their knowledge of social rules. Because
are more sensitive to the systemic nature of sexual desire, emerging as it does at the this level includes a language component to represent emotional experience to one-
vortex of psychological, relational, and sociological forces. The contingent and self and to others and a performance component to enact emotion behaviors, it is
emergent quality of sexual desire that is characteristic of this perspective necessar- more sequential and volitional than the schemata.
ily means a more complicated role for comniunication. Although adults do occasionally react from the schemata level, the more typical
response is one mediated by the conceptual system. Indeed, it is impossible to ex-
plain the so-called social emotions (e.g., guilt, embarrassment, shame) without re-
RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVES course to socially derived cognitive structures. And, in fact, other than unmediated
responses to a startling noise, a sudden pain, and so forth, even the primary erno-
T h e diverse body of research referred to here as relational perspectives share a view tions are to some degree social constructions (see Andersen & Guerrero, Chapter
of sexual desire as a psychological subjective state, reflecting not simply arousal, but 3, this volume). As Averill (1980) explains,
also the desire to have sex, the willingness to have sex, and the motivation to seek
out sexual activity, whether o r not such activity occurs. Implicit in this definition I rnay be angry at John for insulting me, when in actuality John was only trying to be
l~elpfi~lby correctly pointing out a rnistake I had 111adc.John's insult is based on illy ap-
is the argument that the experience of sexual desire, its recognition, meaning, and
praisal o f the situation;it is as much a part o f my anger as is Iny feeling o f hurt. @. 310)
consequences are largely constructed by individuals in response to situational cues.
In this respect, it shares much in common with a constructionist view of emotions. Thus, in the constructivist account of emotion situations are not simply appraised
T h e constructionist view broadens the definition of emotion beyond a small set for the degree to which they are beneficial o r harmful, goal promoting or inhibit-
of universal primary emotions to include complex secondary emotions that are ing. They are appraised for their meaning in the broadest sense and for instructions
manifested through socially determined patterns of action and interpretation (e.g., as to how to experience and enact that meaning within the constraints established
Averill, 1980, 1992). These complex structures, also called syndromes, prototypes, by one's culture.
and transitory social roles, have their distant origin in the fundamental response pat- Similar themes are evident in the writings of scholars interested in the social coil-
terns present at birth, but are qualitatively different phenomena as a result of so- struction of sexuality. For example, Blumstein and Schwartz (1990) argued that
cialization and learning (Saarni, 1993). For these theorists, the experience and ex- "fundamental categorical desire may not even exist. Rather, it is culture that creates
pression of emotion are social constructions both because knowledge of what understandings about how people are sexual" (p. 373).The implications of this view
niakes a situation "emotional" is socially determined and because the enactment of for the study of sexual desire are significant. Culture is fundamentally and inevitably
emotional sequences is mediated by social norms and feeling rules understood at an an historical juncture, and the values, attitudes, rituals, and norms that constitute a
intuitive level (Averill, 1992; Hochschild, 1979, 1983). culture are negotiated agreements. Despite the apparent inherence, timelessness, and
According to Leventhal (1 979, 1980, 1984). the construction process begins at rightness of a culture's sexual and emotional mandates, they are, in fact and in prac-
birth when the primary emotions experienced directly by the infant's "perceptual tice, social contracts that are subject to negotiation and change.
motor system" are contextualized through interactions with caregivers. As infants As noted previously, in contemporary Western society sexual desire is a construct
experience the sequences of responses likely to follow their emotional displays, they linked closely with the roinantic love conlplex (e.g., see Aron & Aron, 1994). So
learn when their'displays are encouraged or discouraged, as well as the reactions familiar is this association that its relatively recent appearance is forgotten. Howev-
they are expected to display in response to others' emotion actions. Thus, emotions er, eniotion historians are quick to point out that sexual desire, sexual activity, and
take on an episodic quality as they beconle embedded within situations and even- ronlantic love have been "packaged" together only in fairly recent history. Stcarlis
tually beconle organized and differentiated along situational dinlensions. This (1 993). for example, describes the consequence of the shift away from arranged mar-
process yields relatively coherent knowledge structures or prototypes called "emo- riages in Europe during the 18th century:
362 S. Metts, S. Sprecher, and I? C. Regan 13. Conlnlunication and Sexual Desire 363
females to find visual stimuli arousing, whereas females were more likely than males ed to a partner, but may not necessarily result in sexual involveriier~tor intercourse.
'to firid roniantic/selational stimuli amusing. As Levine (1984, 1987) noted, the presence of sexual desire is not a suficie~itill-
More recently, R e g n and Derscheid (1995) asked young adults to answer a se- dex to deter~iiitlea PC~SOII'S respo1lse to a sexually evocative situation. 111 a study of'
ries of free-response questio~isexploring tlicir bclicfi ahout tlie causes of 111alcarlti collcg virgins, Sprccllrr and I<eg;111(1096a) fou~ldthat "lack of.~cx11;11 cle~it.~" \Y.IF
fe111;llesexual d ~ ~ i rThe
e . niajority of both Illell and wo11ie11agwed that 111alcand not a rcnsoll rllilc and ~CIII;IIL. virgins g v e fix tlicir virginity. Most were nbstni~~i~~
female desire have different causes. In addition, both viewed feniale sexual desire as because they had not experienced enough love for sonleone or because of fear of
heavily dependent upon relationship factors (e.g., love) and romantic environnien- negative outcomes (e.g., pregnancy, AIDS). Similarly, research on premarital sexu-
tal factors (e.g., romantic settings): al standards indicates that many young adults, especially feniales, believe sexual ex-
pression should not begin until there is a certain level of enlotional c o m n ~ i t ~ i i e ~ ~
Fmm a male rrspondenr: Thoughts of love and romance. Women tend to be niore ronun- in the relationship (Sprecher, 1989;Sprecher, McKinney,Walsh, & Anderson, 1988).
tic . . .Women do have sexual desires brought on by suggestive surroundings but not to
tlie extent o f men. Quiet, romantic surroundings and events seem to play a large role in
As a consequence, couples vary considerably in the stage of relationship develop-
sexual desire. ment where they engage in sexual activity. According to Christopher and Cate
(1985), some couples are rapid intwlvemerrt couples who begin sexual expression ear-
From afemale recpvndent: Often the words"1 love you"will cause sexual desire in a wonian.
ly in the relationship, often on their first date, and are strongly influenced by feel- -
1 think that if a rnan showers positive attention on a woman and makes her feel desirable -------
*attses3tmatdesire;
--------- -
--
ings x j f p ~ s E l ~ i Z i l X 5 t E
couples
r are gradrial invohjement couples who increase
their sexual expression gradually over the four stages of dating (i.e., first date, casu-
Men and women both believed that male sexual desire is strongly influenced by in- ally dating, becoming a couple, arid established as a couple). Delayed involvemcrrt
traindividual (e.g., "maleness," hormones, fantasies) and erotic environmental fac- couples delay sexual expression until they consider themselves to have beconie a
tors (e.g., pornographic or erotic media): couple. Finally, low involvement couples do not engage in sexual expression dur-
From a male mpondenr: Men have what I call a "defective gene" on their DNA ladder. ing courtship and usually wait until marriage. Similarly, Peplau, Rubin, and Hill
This "defective gene" causes sexual desire in men. I label it as defective because it some- (1977) distinguished among "early-sex" couples, "late sex" couples, and "abstain-
times interferes with a man's way o f thinking and decision making. It seems that fronl ing" couples.
riiy experience and listening to friends that guys constantly strive for their sexual desires. In those instances where sexual involvement does occur, how might the inter-
These same desires don't seem to be in women, thus, iny conclusion that it has some-
action unfold? Several reviews of the scholarly literature on sexuality and comniu-
thing to do with our DNA structure.
nication (e.g., Cupach & Metts, 1991; Edgar & Fitzpatrick, 1990; Metts & Cupach,
From ajrmale mpotrdet~t:I'm not exactly sure what causes sexual desire in a man. I would 1989; Metts & Spitzberg, 1996) point to communicative patterns that characterize
.
say just about anything does . . In general, any nlan mniantically involved or not tends initial sexual involvement in developing relationships. Although most of the rr-
to always have a sexual desire (orjust about always). Anything seems to be able to set men
search in the area does not distinguish among sexual attraction, sexual interest, sex-
OK
ual intent, and sexual desire as the affective motivator, we can infer that at least much
Although these respondents are providing anecdotal evidence f i n 1 their own of the time, the sequence is prompted or promoted by sexual desire.
experience, their observations are consistent with research findings from the evolu- This research suggests that men are more likely than women to make the overt
tionary perspective. Greer and Buss (1994). for example,-us -- moverttrat initiate the sexualeplso~,perGpsbecauseth~ havemore s ~ ~ d e -
p------ -
their study on tactics used by college studena to protilote sexual encounters as fol- sirc or perhaps because they arc less itihibitect by social norllis fro111e x p r ~ ~ stih~r ~ rg
lows: "Wo~~ien often need to do nothing to prnlnote a sexual encounter. Sinlply desire, are niore sensitive to their'own subjective arousal, or siniply arc responding
existing in tirile and space and being naked under their clothes is often ellough to to the prevailing interpersonal script that casts them as the initiator (see Taraban ct
trigger approach attempts by men" (p. 197). More will be said about tactics for ex- al., Chapter 12, this volun~e,for a discussion of loving behaviors cotiinlonly initi-
pressing sexual desire and pmrnotirig sexual involvenlent in the next section. ated by men). In summarizing the features of sexual initiation among Anlericati
heterosexual couples drawn tiom several decades of research, Metts and Spitzberg
(1996) list a nurliber of general conclusions. A~l~otig these are the following: (a) Ilc-
Expressing Sexual Desire in Developing Relationships spite an extensive potential repertoire of sexual pursuit tactics, only a relatively s~iiall
subset is considered highly normative; (b) men are inclined to engage in the more
Before discussing the manifestation of sexual desire in sexual episodes, it is impor- direct forms of these tactics, and may have a larger repertoire of such direct tactics;
tant to underscore the fact that sexual desire may be felt arid may be co~ilrriunicat- (c) when women do employ such tactics, they are inclined to use the more illdirect
366 S. Mrtts, S. Sprecher, and I? C.ILgan 13. Conimunicatiori and Sexual Desire 367
forms of these tactics; (d) any tactics employed by wonien are perceived to be effec- That is, people need to be able to express their needs and desires, describe activi-
tive, given ~iienhproclivities to pursue sex; and (e) for better or worse, nlen are cast ties that increase or iriliibit tl~eirarousal, ;ind indicate to tl~eirpartricr wlic~itliosc
in the role of proactive initiator and pursuer of sex, and women are cast in the role behaviors are being successfully enacted. People also need to be able to solicit and
of reactive regulator and sexual gatekeeper. accept without defensiveness the same type of information fiom their partners. This
Studies also suggest that when women offer refusals, the refusals tend to be ver- level of talk is, in a very real sense, self-disclosure. As such, its occurrence arid its
bal and relatively direct. When female refusals are not complied with by males, effects depend on high levels of trust and acceptance. Apparently, the benefits are
stronger more direct refusals are offered, but most refusals are respected by males worth the effort, given the strong association between satisfaction with coniiiiuni-
(Byers, 1988; Murnen, Perot, & Byrne, 1989). However, evidence from college cation about sex and relationship satisfaction in general (Cupach & Coiiistock,
women's descriptiotis of how they would reject unwanted sexual advances fro111a 1990).
tnan indicate that nonverbal actions are also used. Perper and Weis (1987) content Research suggests that couples do express some aspects of their sexual feelings.
analyzed women's essays describing sexual influence episodes. Rejection themes in- The item "my feelings about our sexual relationship" was included in the self-dis-
cluded such techniques as simple rejection, avoiding proceptivity, avoiding intimate closure scale completed by the 231 college dating couples in the Boston Dating
situations, creating distractions, making excuses, physical resistance, departure, hint- Couples Study (Rubin, Hill, Peplau, & Ilunkel-Schetter, 1980). The majority of
ing, express disapproval of man, arguments to delay, and so forth. These indirect the respondents (74% of the women and 73% of the men) indicated they had "fi~ll"
strategies,while less face threatening, tend to invite the unfortunate attribution Gom disclosure on this topic, and most of the others reported "some" disclosure. In a
men that a woman's refusal is merely "token resistance" (Muehlenhard, 1988), when study of emotion expression in relationships, Sprecher and Sedikides (1 993) found
it is in fact legitimate refusal (see Metts & Spitzberg, 1996, for an extended discus- that members of dating, cohabiting, and newly married couples reported express-
sion of token resistance). Clearly, communicative competence in both sending re- ing sexual excitement, through "display" or "disclosure," frequently within the past
fusal messages and interpreting rehsal messages is critical in the negotiation of sex- month. Men reported expressing sexual excitement to a greater degree than the
ual involvement, regardless of intensity of sexual desire. women. This is noteworthy because only one other emotionambivalence-was
Communicative competence continues to be important in more developed sex- - expressed more by men than women (out of 25 positive and negative emotions
ual relationships as well. Not only is it necessary for negotiating the frequency and measured), whereas women reported expressing 1 I emotions to a greater degree
extent of sexual involvement, but also for maintaining the quality of sexual rela- than men.
tions in the face of habituation over time and stress in other areas of the relation- Whether couples are as open about specific sexual preferences and needs is less
ship. We turn now to these issues. clear. Despite the advice of clinicians and Dr. Ruth, couples may still find such per-
sonal disclosure unconifortable. At present, little research is available on how fre-
quently or in what manner partners communicate their preferences. What we do
Expressing Sexual Desire in Established Relationships know is that verbal comnlunication may be especially necessary in those circum-
stances where nonverbal sexual behaviors are perceived differently. Specifically, ex-
Research on sexual initiation and refusal in long-term. heterosexual relationships plicit conin~iitiicatio~iniay be necdcd wlicn one person's assu~liptioriabout thc typcs
(cohabiting and married) suggests that although women niay initiate sorilewhat of behavior most likely to arouse her or his partner are not accurate. Because men
more often after marriage than before (e.g., Brown & Auerback, 1981), men gen- and women do not find the same sexual behaviors equally arousing (Geer & Brous-
erally continue to initiate sex more often than women and women continue to reg- sard, 1990). communication between partners about what is arousing is critically
ulate the frequency of sexual intercourse (e.g., Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983). How- important. According to research conducted by Masters and Johnson (1979; as de-
ever, disagreements over whether to have sex or not tend to be resolved simply by scribed in Brehm, 1992), homosexual couples report greater satisfaction with their
agreeing to have sex at some other time (Byers & Heinlein, 1989). Long-term sex- sexual experiences than do heterosexual couples in part because they find the satne
ual partners also seem willing to engage in sex for a variety of reasons even if they behaviors arousing but also because they talk more openly and easily about what
do not initially feel sexual desire (Levine, 1984). they desire and what is pleasurable. Masters and Johnson (1979) described Iietero-
Whether initiation and refusal patterns, engaging in sexual activity in the ab- sexual couples as having a "persistent neglect of the vital communicative exchange"
sence of sexual desire, and related sexual circumstances influence satisfaction with (p. 219).
the sexual relationship depends in large measure on the comn~unicativeskill of the We also know that if problems in communicating about sexual desire are not re-
partners. As D'Augelli and D'Augelli (1985) described in sonie detail, sexual part- solved, other aspects of the relationship are affected as well (Sprecher, Mcttc,
ners need to have skill in two types of communication: expressive and receptive. Biirleson, Hatfield, & Tholnpson, 1995). Ilciprocally, problems in other areas of a
368 S. Metts. S. Sprecher, and 1'. C. I\egan 13. Con~niunicationand Sexual Ilesire 369
relationship call afect the frequency and intensity of sexual desire and/or a part- to express one's sexual dcsirc. Furthermore, negative attitudes in society about sex-
'
tlefi willingness i o communicate desire when experienced. Many sex therapy pro- uality anlong older adults can lead to decline in both sexual desire and sexual ex-
grams encourage couples to focus on relationship issues, including the develop~llcnt pressio~~ a t ~ l o the
~ ~ gelderly (I\i~ortella-Muller, 1989).
o f co111111u11icatio11 skills (c.g.. Kapl;ltl. 1074; Masters, Joll~lsot~,
& Koloil~ly.1082). More sul?jcctivc Illcasurcs of tlcsirc have also s l ~ o w at ~dccli~lcover ti~llci l l Illilr-
'Tllus, ill tllc clil~ic;~l
Iitcmturc, it is recog~~izcd tlli~tsexual dcsirc a11d c o ~ l i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ l i c a - ri;igcs or otllcr 101ig-tcr111rclatiollsl~ips.Althoi~gl~
passiotl (c.K., Hatficltl L(c I\al)sotl,
tion are reciprocally linked. 1987. 1990) is not syrlonynlous with sexual desire, sexual desire does appear to bc
an in~portantcornpotlent of passion or passionate love. Subjective measures of pis-
sion and passionate love have been found to be negatively associated with length of
Fading o f Sexual Desire and Sexual Expression over Time relationship (Acker & Davis, 1992; Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986; Sprecher & Kegan,
1996b; Tucker & Aron, 1993). which suggests that verbal and nonverbal expression
Research on sexual frequency in marriage indicates that sexual activity declines over of passion or subjective sexual desire would also decline over time.
the duration of marriage and with the increase in spouses' ages. Evidence of de- Although sexual expression declines over time in most long-term relationships,
cline has been found consistently across studies, including cross-sectional research considerable variation exists across couples in the rate of decline. Sorne couples re-
(e.g., Call, Sprecher, & Schwartz, 1995; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, main at a high level of sexual desire and expression until late in life. Some couples
1994), retrospective research (Greenblat, 1983), and longitudinal research (James, are not sexually expressive even early in their marriage. Some couples replace gen-
1981; James, 1983; Udry, 1980). Decline has also been found in cohabiting, het- ital-focused sex with nongenital touching. The degree to which sexual expressiorl
erosexual couples and in gay and lesbian couples (e.g., Ulumstein & Schwartz, 1983). declines over time in a relationship is likely to depend on how satisfied the couple
The rate of decline may be greater early in the marriage than later. For example, is and the degree to which they experience passionate love, which helps to fuel sex-
Jan~es(1981) hypothesized that the rate declines by approxinlately one-half across ual excitement and desire (Aron & Henkerneyer, 1995; Hatfield & ILapson, 1987;
the first year of marriage and then takes another 20 years to half again.The decline Sprecher & Regan, 1996b).
in the first year of marriage has been called "the honeymoon effect." As evidence To some degree, then, a couple might expect changes in their sexual desire and
of this decline, James (1981) analyzed diaries kept by newlyweds and found that the sexual activity over the course of their relationship, although the specifics of this
median frequency of sex in the first month of marriage was over 17 times, but de- change will vary across couples. In many cases, these changes are not salient to a
clined to approximately eight times per month by the end of the first year. Evidence couple and go largely unmarked, particularly when communication is open and
that sexual expression continues to decline after the first year of marriage was found other aspects of the relationship are satisfying. In other cases, however, these changes
in Greenblat's (1983) interview study with married respondents who were in their are noticed and problematized.
first five years of marriage. Greenblatt found that 69%)of men and women married
for more than a year reported that their current rate was lower than their first year
rate (only 6% reported an increase). Problems in Sexual Desire and Other Aspects o f
The various explanations offered for the decline in sexual frequency d o not gen- the Relationship
erally make a distinction between factors affecting sexual desire and factors affect-
ing the expression or enactment of sexual desire. The rapid drop in frequency of ( In some long-term relationships, problenis of low sexual desire and/or diRculty ex-
pressing sexual desire develop for one or both partners (Spector & Carey, 1990).
nlarital sex that occurs shortly after marriage is probably due to habituation or a de-
creased interest in sex with one's regular partner because of an increase in pre- Son~etin~es, the problern is a discrepancy in sexual desire; one partner wants sex less
dictability.The arousal stemming from u~lcertai~lty and novelty that was experienced frequently or more frequently than the other. A problem in sexual desire and ex-
during early sexual exploration eventually subsides. To the extent that this general-
ized arousal amplified, or was perhaps experienced as, sexual desire, its decline would
/1 pression may be due to a number of nonrelational factors, including illness, anxi-
ety, and a history of sexual assault. However, in many cases, diminished sexual de-
reduce the nlotivation to initiate sexual activity. Later in marriage, sexual expres- sire or unwillingness to express sexual desire niay be indicative of other relatio~lship
sion can decline further because of increases in role and tinie demands due to chil- problen~s(Stuart, Hammond, & Pett, 1987). For example, relationship cotlflict a11d
dren, employment, caring for elderly parents, and other obligations that may reduce argunients can dampen sexual desire and expression, particularly for women (e.g.,
the opportunity for the expression o r enactment of sexual desire, even if the desire I 13lumstein & Schwartz, 1983). Indeed, "emotional conflict with partner" was cited
has not dissipated. Once sexual expression declines, couples are likely to modify as the niost common cause of inhibited sexual desire anlong married men atld
their relationshipi sexual script to include a lower level of sexual activity (Call et wonlell ill a survey of 4Ot) physicians (I'ietropinto. 1986). Moreover, even when rc-
al., 1995). Finally, later in life, biological or health factors may decrease the ability lational climate is not overtly hostile, if it is not conducive to open c o ~ l ~ n ~ u ~ ~ i c
13. Communication and Sexual Desire 371
370 S. Metts, S. Sprecher, and F? C. Regan
The biological or reproductive view tends to characterize sexual desire as a biolog-
srxll:ll llcsirr 111ayhe afkcted. 111 a I o l ~ ~ i t ~ ~ dstudy
i n a I of married and cohabiting ical drive that is signaled through emotion displays, thereby facilitating mating; or
w o n ~ e tHallstroni
~, and Sarnuelsson (1990) found that those who reported a decrease is manifested through copulation that leads to emotional responses, which in turn
over titile in sexl~aldesire tended to perceive insufficient enlotional support and lack lead to intimate communication and pair bonding. This view is. not inconipatiblc
of a co~lfidi~lg relatio~aliipwith tlirir spouse. Likewise, couples who believe their with the relational view, though it is more linear than systemic. The relational view
relatiomhips to be inequitable are less likely to want to have sex (Hatfield. Green- tends to characterize sexual desire more broadly, noting that, although it is experi-
berger, Trauplnann, & Lambert, 1982; Traupmann, Hatfield, & Wexler, 1983). It is enced as a unitary psychological state, it is in fact composed of several features: bi-
no surprise that many clinicians now focus on the dynamic of the couple's rela- ological drive, cognitions that generate the wish or desire to behave sexually, a~ld
tionship in seeking to treat sexual desire disorders (e.g., Regas & Sprenkle, 1984; psychological processes that yield a willingness to behave sexually. This character-
Trudel, 1991). ization places cognition (though perhaps not conscious processing) as the niediat-
Importantly, even in couples with relatively healthy sexual relationships, sexual ing factor between physiological arousal and sexual activity. Communication then
desire and sexual expression are related to the quality of other aspects of the rela- enters the model as the vehicle to stimulate arousal, express cognitions relevant to
tionship. In general, frequency and intimacy of sexual expression are positively as- arousal (i-e., the desire to behave sexually and the wiliingness to behave sexually),
sociated with relationship satisfaction (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Call et al.,
and to process sexual meanings and intentions with partner. Emotion may or may
1995; Sprecher et al., 1995). Couples who are happy have more sex, presumably be-
not be the defining feature of sexual episodes. We might speculate that for persolls
cause they have more sexual desire for each other. However, clinical studies and case
who construct emotions fiom social situations according to prevailing Western
reports suggest that marital partners often use sexual desire as a "thermometer" to
stereotypes (particularly those that define gender expectations), the presence of sex-
overall relationship adjustment. Specifically, a marked decrease or absence of sexu-
ual desire is probably experienced as various shadings of the romantic love complex
al desire experienced by one or both partners is interpreted as a "problem" that re-
(e.g., infatuation, attraction, love, affection). For many people, when no relation-
quires correction, usually through some form of therapeutic intervention (e.g.,
ship potential exists or when relationship affection has dissipated, sexual desire
Kaplan, 1979; Leiblum & Rosen, 1988; Levine, 1987;Talmadge & Talmadge, 1986).
might be constructed simply as sexual need, horniness, or lust. Perhaps the distinc-
In addition, some clinicians posit that sexual desire may serve to regulate emotion-
tion lies in the solitary nature of tlic latter situation. As scvenl e~notio~l theorists
al distance between a couple; that is, sexual desire niay increase or decrease as an in-
have noted (e.g., de llivera, 1984), enlotions are essentially social responses-thc
dividual's need to be close to the partner waxes and wanes (e.g.,Verhulst & Heiman,
self interacting with the social environment. In the absence of any concern beyond
1979; Zilbergeld & Ellison, 1980).
self, arousal might be perceived as no more emotional than a state of hunger or fa-
In sum, the association between sexual desire and other relationship properties
tigue.
appears to be systemic. What occurs in the couple's bedroom is likely to be affect-
In our discussion of the relational perspective, we touched on several important
ed by what happens in the rest of their relationship; conversely, the activity (or lack
issues that merit additional research. Because sexual desire is often experienced and
of) in the bedroom is likely to affect the rest of the relationship. No doubt some
expressed within enlotionally close relationships, sexual desire is related to many
couples may be able to punctuate the cycle by pointing to sexual problems as the
other relationship phenomena, including satisfaction, love, equity, and relationship
cause and relationship problems as the effect, or vice versa. In reality, isolating the
duration. Unfortunately, however, there has been a dearth of research that consid-
direction of causality is very difficult to do. As Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) de-
ers both the experience and expression of sexual desire within a relational context.
scribe the dilemma:
Other emotions related to sexuality, such as sexual satisfaction, have received niorc
It is hard to know whether an unsatisfactory relationship leads to Icxs k c q u e ~ sexual
~t ac- empirical and theoretical attention. More research is needed on how sexual desire
tivity and reduced sexual pleasure or whether the p r o b l e ~ ~beyin~ s in the b c d r o o ~and
~~ and its comn~unicationare related to other sexual feelings (sexual satisfaction, sex-
eventually corrode t l ~ centire relationship. F ~ I Iour I vantage point it looks as if other ual guilt), to sexual behaviors (frequency of sexual activity, likelihood of engaging
problenu C O I I I ~into the bedroorl~and tnake it less likely that the couple wiU want to have in extradyadic sex), and to aspects of the larger relationship (e.g., satisfaction).
sex together. The low 6equency then becomes a source o f dissatisfaction in and o f itself.
In particular, research needs to be directed toward understanding how sexual de-
(P. 201)
sire changes over time in a relationship and how its association with other rela-
tionship phenomena (e.g., relationship quality) change as well. Western culture has
so embued romantic love with sexual overtones that distinguishing the two emo-
CONCLUSION tions in everyday life is difficult. Couples who read the arousal of sexual desire as
the arousal of romantic love, may use communication to celebrate and maintain the
This chapter has explored the complex associations among communication, emo- mystery rather than to understand each other. Consequently, decreases in arousal
tion, and sexual desire.Two views evident in the scholarly literature were discussed.
JIA a. ivlrrcs, a. aprecner, ana K L. Kegan 13. Coniniunication and Sexual Desire 373
are likely to be perceived as relational decline unless partners are able to voice their Cavanagh. J. R. (1969). Rhythm of sexual desire in wonlea. Medical A s p t s of Huw~nnSextr~rlity,.I.
' concerns and negotiate new relational meanings. Research focused on these 29-39.
Christopllcr, E S., R. Catc, It. M. (1085). Prenlarital scxual pathways and relationship drvclop~~lc~~t..~~
processes in dating and married c o ~ ~ p land
e s in homosexual couples is essential. not
nel 4Swirrl nrrd Pcna~nlRrlnrio~t~hips, 2, 27 1-288.
otlly for scholars but for clinicians as well. In s u a ~the
, centrality of sexual desire to Christopher. E S.. 8; Roosa, M. W. (1991). Factors affecting sexual decisions in the preniarital rc1atio11-
how couples define and enact their relationships necessitates hrther research, espe- ship* of adolescents and young adults. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sex~ralityirr close n4r-
cially with longitudinal designs and creative methodologies. tio~r.clrips(pp. 111-133). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaunl.
Cupach, W. R.,8; Cou~stock, J. (1990). Satisfaction with sexual comniunication in marriage: Links to
sexual satisfaction and dyadic adjust~nent.Jo~~rnal qf Sorinl a d Penorral Relntionslrips, 7, 179-1 Xf,.
i o n relationships. III K. McKin-
Cupach, W. I<., & Mctts. S. (1991). Sexuality and c o ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ u n i cina tclose
REFERENCES ney & S. Sprecher (Edc.),Sexuality in closr rrlntionslrips (pp. 93-107). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbau111.
V'Augelli. A.. & 1)'Augelli. J. E (1985). The enhat~ce~i~cnt of sexual skills and colilpetence: I'ru~~iotitl~
Abbey, A., & Melby, C. (1986). The effects of nonverbal cues on gender differences in perceptions of lifelong sexual unfolding. In L. L'Abate & M. A. Milan (Eds.), Handbook ofsocial skills rrairrit!q n~rdrv-
sexual intent. Sex Roles, 15, 283-298. srarrh (pp. 170-191). New York: Wiley.
Acker, M.. & Davis, M. H. (1992). Intimacy, passion, and comnlittnent in adult romantic relationships: DeLa~nater,J. (1991). Emotions and sexuality, In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sex~ralityin close. nt-
A t a t of the triangular theory of love.Jountal of Social and Personal Relatiorrs/rips, 9, 21-50. lationships @p. 49-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Aron, A,, & Aron, E. N. (1991). Love and sexuality. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in VeLatnater,J. (1989).The social control of human sexuality. In K. McKinney, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), 1111-
close relationships @p. 25-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. nrarl sex~rality:771esocietal and ir~terpersorralcontext (pp, 30-62). Nonvood, NJ: Ablex.
Aron, A.. & Aron;E. N. (1994). Love. In A. L. Weber & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Pnspertives on dose relation- de Rivera, J. (1984). 1)evelopnlent and the full range of enlotional experience. 111 C. Z. ma late st;^ K.
ships (pp. 131-152). Boston: AUyn & Bacon. C. E. Izard (Eds.), Entotiorr irt adult deuelopnlmt @p. 4 M 3 ) . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Aron, A., & Henkemeyer, L. (1995). Marital satisfaction and passionate love.Journal ofSocia1artd Person- Edgar, T., & Fitzpatrick. M. A. (1990). Co~nn~unicating sexual desire: Message tactics for having ant1
al Relationships, 12, 139-146. avoiding intercourse. In J. l? Ilillard (Ed.), Strkir~fco~nplin~rce: ?he produnior~oficiterprsocml i~$rtrtrn-
AveriU. J. R.(1980). A constructivist view of emotion. In R . Plutchik & H. KeUerrnan (Eds.). En~otiorr: rncssnges (pp. 107-122). Scotadale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
Tlreory, resenrrh, and experience @p. 305-339). New Yotk: Acadenlic Press. Ekman, P (1984). Expression and the nature of emotion. In K. R. Scherer & I? Ekman (Eds.), Appronrl~cs
Averill, J. R.(1992). The sttuctural bases of emotional behavior: A metatheoretical analysis. In M. S.. to emoliot~@p. 319-344). Hilkdale, NJ: Erlbauni.
Clark (Ed.), Emotion @p. 1-24). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ehnan, I?, Levenson, R.W., & Friesen, W. V. (1983). Autonomic nervous system activity distingc~isllcs
Bancroft,J. (1988). Sexual desire and the brain. Sexual and Marital n~erapy,3, 11-27. among eniotions. SEicnce, 221, 1208-1210.
Beck, J. G., Bozman, A. W., & Qualaough, T.(1991). The experience of sexual desire: Psychological Elkworth, I? C.. & Sniith, C. A. (1989). From appraisal to emotion: Differences among unpleasant fccl-
correlates in a college sample. ?he Jottral of Sex Research, 28, 443-456. ing. Mofi~~liort nrld Entotiorr, 12, 271-302.
Bencheid, E. (1988).Some co~rirnentson low's anatomy: Or, whatever happened to old-fashioned lust? Epstein, S. (1984). Controversial issues in enlotion theory. In I? Shaver ( ~ d . ) Review, ofponality n ~ SO- ~d
In J. Sternberg & M. Barnes (Eds.), n~epsychologyoflow @p. 359-374). New Haven. CT: Yale Uni- cialpsycl~olqqy:Err~otiotrs,nlntiortships, and lrealtlr @p. 64-88). Beverly Hills. CA: Sage.
versity Press. Everaerd, W. (1988). Con~mentaryon sex research: Sex as an emotion. ~ournal'ofRycltology and Ifrrr~rttrc
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). A little bit about love. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), Foco~dations@interper- SPx~mliry,1, 3-15.
sotral attracfiorl @p. 355-381). New York: Acadenuc Press. Frijda, N. H., Kuipers. I?. & ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations between emotion, appraisal, and en~otio~l-
Bertocci, P A. (1988). 771eperson and primary emoliotrr New York: Springer-Vehg. al action readiness. Jo~mralofl'monnlity and Social Psyclrology, 57, 212-228.
Blunatein, I?, & Schwartz, l? (1983). American co~rples.New York: Morrow. Gagnon, J. H. (1990).The explicit and i~nplicituse of the scripting perspective in sex research. In J. Ball-
Blunntein, I?, & Schwartz, I? (1990). Intimate relationships and the creation of sexuality. In D. !I croft (Ed.), At~nualme 'w4sex researrh (Vol. 1, pp. 1-44). Lake Mills, 1A: Society for thc Scic~~tific
McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), HomoscxualityNrrt~roscxr~nlity: Corlcepts ofsrx~ral Study of Sex.
orirn~trriorr.New York: Oxford University Press. C;agion, J. H.. & Si~noci.W. (1973). . k ~ r n cottdrrct:
l 7 7 sorial
~ sources ojh~o,nansrxrrality. Cl~icago:Altliltr.
Urehnl, S. S. (1992). brtirnate rrlnfiorrskips (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Geer, J. H., 8; Broussard. I). 13. (1900). Scaling heterosexual behavior and arousal: Consistency ant1 scx
Brown, M., & Auerback, A. (1981). Coniniunication patterns in initiation of marital sex. Medical Aspecls differences.J o ~ ~ n ?f~ aPrrsormlify
l atrd Soriel Psyrltok~y,58, 664-671.
of Human Sex~mality,15, 105-1 17. Crec~~blat. C. S. (1983). The salicnce of sexuality in the early years of marriage.Jo~tnmlofMnmqpc nrrrl
Buck, R. (1980). Nonverbal behavior and the theory of emotion: The facial feedback hypothesis. Jorrr- rhr Family, 45, 289-299.
t~nluf Persorraliry awd Sotinl Ryrkolqqy, 38, 81 1-824. Greer, A. E., & Buss. 1). M. (194). Tactics for promoting sexual encounters.Jourrral @Sex Rrsearrlr, .!I,
Buck. R. (1984). 71te con~mtrtricationojen~otion.New York: Guilford. 185-201. ,
Uyers. E. S. (1088). Effects of sexual arousal on r~~en's and won~en'sbehavior in sexual disagreelnerlt sit- Hallstn)~l~.T.. 8; Snn~uclsso~l, S. (10%)).C l ~ a n g ~ina wolncn's scxual desire in 111iddlelife:Tlic hngitudi-
uations. jormral ($sexResrnrdt, 25, 235-254. nal study of wolnen in C;otl~enburg.Arrlrivcs cf Sexunl Bel~m'ior,19, 250-268.
Byers, E. S., & Heinlein, L. (1989). Predicting initiations and refusals of sexual activities in married and Harris. I? L. (1003). Utldcrstanding elllotion. 111 M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), lffl~rdl~ook qfcrrrerierr
cohabiting heterosexual couples.Jorrn~alofSrx Resca~k,26, 210-231. (pp. 237-246). New York: Guilford.
Call, V., Sprerhcr, S., & Schwartz, I? (1995). The incidence and frequency of marital sex in a national Harvey. J. H.. Wcbcr. A. L., & Orbucli, T. L. (IW)). Intcrpenorral accotrrrts: A sorinl psyt8oh,~icol prrsl~rrirr.
sample.Jorrn~aloJMarriafi and the Fn'arnily, 57, 63Y-452. Can~bridgc,MA: Basil Blackwell, Inc.
' 374 S. Metts, S. Sprecher, and P. C. Regan 13. Comniunication and Sexual Desire 375
' Hatfield. E., Crccnbergcr, I>..Tnup~nann.J., & Lanlbert. I? (1982). Equity and sexual satisfaction in re-
cently ~llarricdcouples.Jourrtal of* Rrseatrh, 18, 1U-32.
Masters. W. H.. Jolrnson. V. E., & Kolodny, R.C. (1982). H I I I Msexttality. ~ hstoti, MA: Little, Urowtt
and Co~npany.
Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. (1987). Passionate love/sexual desire: Can the same paradigm explain both? McCabe, M. I?, & Collins, J. K. (1984). Measurement of depth of desired and experienced sexual ill-
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16, 259-278. volvenient at different stages of dating.Journal ofScx Research, 20, 377-390. .
Hatf~eld,E., & Rapson, R. L. (1990). Passionate love in intimate relationships. In B. S. Moore & A. Isen Mclntosh, W. D.. & Martin, L. L. (1992). The cybernetics of happiners:The relation of goal attainme~it,
(Eds.), Aff~fand social behavior @p. 126-152). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University P w . rumination, and affect. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Emotion and social behavior @p.222-246). Newbury I'ark.
Hatfield, E., & Rapson. R . (1993). Love and attachment processes. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), CA: Sage.
Handbook of emotion (pp. 595-604). New York: Guilford. Metts. S., & Bowers, J. W.(1994). Emotion in interpersonal comnluniation. In M. L. Knapp & G . R.
Hatfield. E., & Sprecher.S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intihate relations.journal ofAdolesmue, Miller (Eds.). Handbook ofinterpersonalcommunication (second edition) @p.50&541).Thousand Oaks,
9, 383-410. CA: Sage.
Hochschild,A. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules and social structure.American Joumal ofSodology, 75, Metts, S.. & Cupach, W. R. (1989). The mle of conununication in human sexuality. In K. McKinney 8:
551-575. S. Sprecber (Eds.).Human sexuality: The societal and intqersonal context (pp. 193-161). Norwood, NJ:
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). 7'he managed heart. Berkeley: University of Califbrnia Press. AMex.
lurd, C. E. (1990). Facial expressions and the regulation of emotions.Journal 4Pmonality and Social By- Metts, S., & Spitzberg. B. H. (1996). Sexual comnrunication in interpersonal contexts: A script-bwrcl
cholp~y,58,87498. approach. 111B. R . Uurleson (Ed.), Corr~s~nrtication yrarhok 19 (pp. 4O-Y2).Tl1ousandOaks. (:A: Sage.
lurd, C. E. (1993). Organizational and niotivational hnctions of discrete emotions. In M. Lewis & Moore, M. M. (1985). Nonverbal courtship patterns in women: Context and consequences. Ethology arrd
J. M. Haviland (Eds.). Hmdbook ofemotion (pp. 631-642). New York: Guilford. Sociobiolo~y,6, 237-247.
James, W. H. (1981).The honeyinoon effect on marital coitus. 7kejournal ofsex Researech, 17, 114-123. Moore, M . M.. & Butler, D.L. (1989). Predictive aspects of nonverbal courtship behavior in wonlcn.
James, W. H. (1983). Decline in coital rates with spouses'ages and duration of marriage.Journal ofBio- Sertriotica, 76, 205-215.
science, 15, 83-87. Muehlenhard, C. L. (1988). "Nice women" don't say yes and "real men" don't say no: How miscorn-
Kaplan. H. S. (1974). The new sex therapy: Active treahnent ofsexual dysfundion. New York: Brunner/Mazel. munication and the double standard can cause sexual problems. Women and Therapy, 7, 96-108.
Kaplan, H. S. (1977). Hypoactive sexual desire.J o u d ofSex and Marital Ihempy, 3, 3-9. Murnen, S. K.. Perot, A.. & Byrne. D. (1989). Coping with unwanted sexual activity: Normative re-
Kaplan. H. S. (1979). Disorders ofsexual desire and other new concepts and techniques in sex therapy. New York: sponses, situational determinants, and individual differences. IheJournal of& Research, 26, 85-106.
Simon & Schuster. Oatley, K. (1993).Social construction in emotion. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Ed.), Handbook oforto-
Kenny, J. A. (1973). Sexuality of pregnant and breastfeeding women. Archim of Sexual Behavior, 2, tions (pp. 341-352). New York: Guilford.
215-229. O'Sullivan. L. E, & Byen, E. S. (1993). Emding stereotypes: College women's attempts to influence re-
Knoth, R., Boyd, K., & Singer, B. (1988). Empirical tests of sexual selection theory: Predictions of luctant niale sexual partners. 771eJounral of& Research, 30, 270-282.
sex differences in onset, intensity, and time course of sexual arousal.Journal of& Research, 24, Rplau, L. A.. Rubin, 2..& Hill, C. T. (1977). Sexual intimacy in dating relationships.Journal ofScKial b-
73-89. strrs, 33, 86-109.
Koeppel, L. B., Montagne-Miller, Y..O'Hair, D.,& Cody, M. J. (1993). Friendly? Flirting? Wrong? In Perper. T., & Weis, I). L. (1987). Proceptive and rejective strategies of U.S. and Canadian college wonvn.
P.J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.). Interpersonal communication: Evolving interpersonal relationships @p. 13-32). Hills- Jounral ofSex Research, 23, 455-480.
dale. NJ: Erlbaurn. Pietropinto, A. (1986). Inhibited sexual desire. Medical Asprru of Hrtntnrt Sexrrality, 20(10), 4-9.
Laulnano, E. O., Gagnon,J. H., Michael. R . T., & ~ichaels,S. (1994). 77tr social o~ar~ization ofsexuality: I'lutcl~ik.I<. (1084).Enlotions:A general psyclioevoli~tiot~ary theory. In K. R. Scherer & I? Ekti~an(Eds.),
Sexual practices in the United Stairs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Approaches to rmotinn @p. 197-219). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbau~n.
Laws,J. L., & Schwartz, F! (1977). Sexual scripts: The socia1com~ction ofjmale sexuality H~ndale,IL: Dry- Reed. I)., & Weinbcrg, M. S. (1984). Premarital coitus: I>eveloping and established sexual scripts. SMial
den. Psyclrology Qtcarterly, 47, 12Y-138.
Lazarus, R. S., Coyne. J. C., & Follunan, S. (1984). Cognition, emotion and niotivation: The doctoring Regan. I? C.. & Berscheid. E. (1995). Gender differences in belie6 about the causes of nlale and female
of Humpty-Duciipty. In K. R. Scherer & F! Ekman (Eds.),Approaches to emotiort @p.221-238). Hills- sexual desire. Pmor~alRelatiorrsltips, 2, 345-358.
dale, NJ: Erlbauni. Regan, I? C., & Bekcheid. E. ( I Y Y ~Belie6 ). about the state, goals, and objects of sexual desire.Jo~tn~al
Leiblum, S. R., & Rosen, R.C. (1988). Introduction: Changing perspectives on sexual desire. In S. R. ofsex 6 Marital Therapy, 22, 110-120.
Leiblum & R. C. Rosen (Eds.), Sexual desire disordm @p. 1-17). New York: Guilford Press. Regas, S. J., & Sprenkle, 11. H. (1984). Functional family therapy and the treatment of inhibited sexual
Leventhal, H. (1979). A perceptual motor processing niodel of enlotion. In I? Pliner, K. R . Blankstein, desire.Jorrnmal ?fMarital nrrd Wrrrily Vrerapy, 10, 63-72.
& 1. M. Spigel (Eds.), Perception ofemotion in seljattd others: Aiwues in the study ofcomntunication arrd Reiss. I. L. (1986).Jo~mteyiato sex~~lity: Atr exploratory wynge. New York: Prentice-Hall.
afect, Vol. 5 @p. 1-46). New York: Plenum. Reiss, I. L. (1989). Society and sexuality: A sociological explanation. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher
Leventhal, H. (1980).Toward a comprehensive theory of emotion. In L. Berkowia (Ek.), Adwrrrec in (Eds.), Hrmtan sextmlity: 77te societal ar~dbrterpersortal context @p. 3-29). Norwood. NJ: Ablex.
experimerr&zlsocia/ psychology, b l . 13 @p. 139-207). New York: Academic Press. Richgels, P. 13. (1992). Hypoactive sexual desire in heterosexual women: A feminist analysis. Ubntot and
Leventhal, H. (1984). A perceptual motor theory of einotion. In K. R. Scherer & F! Ekman (Eds.), Ap- 7Iterapy, 12, 123-135.
proarhes to entolion (pp. 271-292). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbau~n. Riportclla-Muller. R. (1989). Sexuality in the elderly: A review. In K. McKinney & S. Sprechcr (Eds.).
Levine. S. U. (1984). An essay on the nature of sexual desire.Jormral of Sex 6 Marital Tltrryy, 10, 83-96. Ibarrr~rrstx~r~rlity:
?III*socir~alnrtd irrtr~q~c~rr~~rml
mrrrrBxt(pp. 210-230). Norwootl. NJ: Ablcx.
Lcvi~lc,S. 13. (1987). More on the tlatrlrc of scx~~al tlesirc. Jc~trnral?f %.u G Mt~ritttl?kc.ropy, 1.3. 3.5-44. Roche. J. I! (1086). I'rc~l~;lritnl tcx: Attitltdcx a ~ behavior
~ d by tlatir~gstap. Ack)lrscnrcc; 21, 107-121.
Masters, W. H., &Johnson, V (1979). Homosexuality inpnpcctiw. 13oston: Little, Drown. Rosetnan, I . J. (1984). Cognitive determinants of emotion: A structural theory. In I? Shaver (Ed.), Rr-
376 S. Metts, S. Sprecher, and t! C. Kegan 13. Conl~llunicationand Sexual I>esire 377
, view ofpmsonalityand social pryrholqy: Emotioru, elationships,and health (pp. 11-36). Beverly Hills, CA:
-
Totrikins, S. S. (1980). Affect as an~plification:Sotlle modificatio~~s
18, ll(&lSH.
in theory. Pcrrepttral and Motor Skills,
Sage.
Rubin. 2.. Hill. C.T.. Peplau, L. A,. Ilunkel-Schetter. C. (1980). Self-disclosure in dating coupla: Sex Ton~kins,S. S. (1984). Affect theory. In K. R. Scherer & I? Eknlan (Eds.). Approarl~mto ra~erit~tr
roles and the ethic of openness.Jownral of Marriage and the Family, 42, 305-317. (pp. 163-106). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbauni.
Saarni. C . (1993). Socialization of eniotion. In M. Lewis & J. M. Havihnd (Eds.), Handbook flemotion Traupnla~~n, J., Hatfield. E., & Wexler, E (1983). Equity and sexual satisfaction in dating couples. fiitislr
@p. 435-446). New York: Guilford. jotrrr~alI JSorial
~ Psycl~olqy,22, 33-40.
Shaver, F! R., Schwartz,J. C., Kirson, D., & O'Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further explo- Trudel. G. (1991). Review of psychological Lctors in low sexual desire. Sex~raland Marital 771nap)i 6,
rations of a prototype approach.Journal of Personality and Social Psycholqy, 52, 1061-1086. 261-272.
Shaver, E? R., Wu, S., & Schwartz,J. C. (1992). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in eniotion and Tucker, I?, & Aron. A. (1993). Passionate love and marital satisfaction at key transition points in the fa111-
its representation: A prototype approach. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Enrotion (pp. 175-212). Newbury Park. ily life cycle. Jountal ofsorial m~dClir~irdlPsyclrolqy, 12, 135-147.
CA: Sage. Udry, J. R. (1980). Clianges in the frequency of marital intercourse from panel data. Arrhiws oJb.x~rrtl
Shotland, R. L., & Craig. J. M. (1988). Can nien and women differentiate between fiiendly and sexual- Brl~avior,9, 319-325.
ly interested behavior? Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 66-73. Useche, B..Villegas. M., & hlzate, H. (1990). Sexual behavior of Colombian high school students. Ado-
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives 4 S x u a l Behavior, bmtre, 22, 291-304.
15,97-120. Verhulst. J.. & Heiman, J. R. (1979).An interactional approach to sexual dysfunctions. American Jountal
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1987). A sexual scripts approach. in J. H. Geer & W. O'Donohue (Eds.), of Family Vtrryy, 7, 19-36.
neories ofhuman sexuality @p. 363-383). New York: Plenum. White, G. L.. Fishbein. S., & Rutstein, J. (1981). Passionate love and the misattribution of amusal.Jorrr-
Simpson,J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Personality and sexuality: Empirical relations and an integra- r~alof Personality and Social Psy(Irolqy, 4 1, 56-62.,
tive theoretical model. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp.71-92). Zilbergeld, U.,& Ellison, C. R . (1980). Desire discrepancies and amusal problerns in sex therapy. In
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. S. R . Leiblutii & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), hinciples and pratiu ofsex tlrempy (pp. 65-101). New York:
Smith, C. A., & EUsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Joumal ofhonality Guilford.
and W l Psychology, 48, 813-838.
Solonion, R . C. (1993).The philosophy of emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of
emotions (pp. 3-16). New York: Guilford.
Spector, I. P., & Carey, M. F! (1990). Incidence and prevalence of the sexual dysfunctions: A critical re-
view of the en~piricalliterature. Arclriws d&xtral Behavior, 19, 38WfM.
Sprague,J., & Quadagno, D.(1989).Gender and sexual motivation: An exploration o i two assun~ptions.
Jourr~nlof Psyckology atrd Hranatr Smunlity, 2, 57-76.
Spreclter. S. (1989). Prc~i~arital.sexualsta~~dardsfor different categories of itidivid~tals.Ihr Jo~~nral
IJ~&X