Sexual fantasies were not reviewed by Oliver and Hyde (1993). This was due in large part to the fact that many studies focus on the content of males’ and females’ fantasies, while at the same time there is no standard method of categorizing sexual fantasies, making it difficult if not impossible to cumulate findings across studies.
Leitenberg and Henning (1995) reviewed research on sexual fantasies and included a particular focus on gender differences and similarities in sexual fantasy. They concluded that the incidence of fantasy during masturbation is higher for men than for women, with an average of about 86% of men reporting such fantasizing, compared with 69% of women. (These statistics are computed just for those who masturbate, so the large gender difference in the incidence of masturbation does not influence the results.) Despite the gender difference in the incidence of fantasies, the majority of women (69%) do have fantasies during masturbation. Leitenberg and Henning also concluded that there was no gender difference in the incidence of fantasy during sexual intercourse. It is frustrating that the only study to report data separately for Blacks and Whites was based on a convenience sample of college students, severely limiting any conclusions that could be reached from it.
Many of the studies reviewed by Leitenberg and Henning were old (e. g., Kinsey et al., 1953) or based on convenience samples. The recent well-sampled NORC study found that 54% of men, compared with 19% of women, had sexual thoughts frequently, defined as every day or more (Laumann et al., 1994).
In one interesting study, college student participants used a diary method and recorded sexual fantasies as they occurred throughout the day (Jones & Barlow, 1990). The sexual fantasies were recorded according to whether they were provoked by an external stimulus (e. g., something they saw or read), were internally generated, or occurred during masturbation. On the average, men reported about 4-5 externally triggered sexual fantasies per day, about 2.7 internally generated fantasies per day, and less than 1 masturbatory fantasy per day. Women reported, on the average, about 2 externally triggered fantasies, 2.5 internally generated fantasies, and less than 1 masturbatory fantasy per day. Men and women, then, do not appear to differ in the incidence of internally generated fantasies or masturbatory fantasies. Men are considerably more likely than women, though, to experience externally triggered sexual fantasies. This gender difference may be the result of a number of factors, including men’s greater exposure to and interest in sexually explicit materials, or men’s greater responsiveness to sexually arousing visual stimuli.
Sociobiologists have especially emphasized the visual stimuli factor, arguing that responsiveness to a wide variety of sexual stimuli confers a reproductive advantage for men (e. g., Ellis & Symons, 1990). Sociocultural explanations, however, based on role theory and script theory, can just as readily explain these findings. As noted earlier, women and men are socialized considerably differently in regard to sexuality. Central to the message conveyed to girls and women is that sex for them is legitimate only in the context of a committed relationship, whereas men are allowed more sexual freedom (Sprecher et al., 1987). Sexual fantasy in response to a sexually explicit magazine is in essence a type of sexual expression where no relationship is involved; it may therefore be much more comfortable for males than for females.
Evolutionary psychologists have framed predictions about differing patterns of sexual jealousy in men compared with women (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). The argument is that men must solve the problem of uncertainty of paternity. That is, it is not to their evolutionary advantage to invest in offspring who are not theirs. Therefore, men should be more distressed (jealous) than women by sexual infidelity. Women, in contrast, are certain whether an offspring is theirs. Their evolutionary strategy is maximized, according to the theory, by being confident of their mate’s continued commitment and investment. That is, women should be more distressed than men by emotional infidelity.
To test this prediction, respondents were asked to do the following: “Imagine that you discover that the person with whom you’ve been seriously involved became interested in someone else. What would distress or upset you more (please circle one only): (A) Imagining your partner forming a deep emotional attachment to that person. (B) Imagining your partner enjoying passionate sexual intercourse with that other person” (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992, p. 252). The former can be termed emotional infidelity and the latter sexual infidelity. The results, both measured by self-reported ratings and by physiological measures, indicated that men were most distressed by sexual infidelity, whereas women were most distressed by emotional infidelity.
These findings are consistent with the predictions of evolutionary psychology. Again, though, the results would have been equally predictable based on an analysis of sociocultural factors. There is a long history of ridiculing a man who is a cuckold. It is interesting to note that Webster’s dictionary defines cuckold in gendered terms: a man whose wife has committed adultery. A woman cannot be cuckolded. Men, in short, have been told that they are undone if their spouse engages in sex with someone else. Again, women’s economic dependence caused by the wage gap is a reasonable explanation for why they feel distressed about emotional infidelity, insofar as it signals potential desertion by the man and loss of economic support.
In cross-cultural research, respondents from 37 different societies around the world rated the importance of chastity in a marriage partner (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). The prediction from evolutionary psychology is that men should rate chastity as more important in a partner than women should. This hypothesis was supported by findings of a significant gender difference in 23 of the 37 samples; the remaining 14 societies showed no gender difference. Men’s greater emphasis on chastity in a partner is scarcely a universal, according to these data.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter we reviewed the results of a meta-analysis of gender differences in sexuality, which indicated that there are large gender differences in the incidence of masturbation (with males having the higher incidence) and in attitudes toward casual sex (males hold more permissive attitudes). The meta-analysis also found evidence of no gender differences in some areas, including attitudes about civil liberties for homosexuals and sexual satisfaction.
We also reviewed evidence regarding gender differences in patterns of mate selection. These studies generally find that men place a high priority on youth and physical attractiveness in choosing a mate, whereas women place more emphasis on earning potential.
Sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists have developed theoretical frameworks that “predict” many of the gender differences reported here, in particular the gender difference in attitudes toward casual sex and the gender difference in patterns of mate selection. Without pausing for breath, though, we must go on to say that these phenomena are equally well predicted by sociocultural factors, in particular by social role theory and feminist theory. For example, women’s economic inequality is a very reasonable explanation for women’s emphasis on a potential mate’s earning potential.
The bottom line is that the theories reviewed here do not make strong differential predictions regarding patterns of gender differences in sexuality. Rather, they yield similar if not identical predictions. An important advance in this area of research will occur when the theories are sufficiently refined to specify differential predictions for different theories.
The magnitude of some of the gender differences reported here— particularly in the incidence of masturbation and attitudes about casual sex —is enormous compared with the magnitude of gender differences in other areas of psychology that have received much publicity and research. For example, overall, the magnitude of gender differences in mathematics performance in samples of the general population is d = —0.05 (Hyde, Fen — nema, & Lamon, 1990). The magnitude of gender differences in verbal ability, overall, is d = —0.11 (Hyde & Linn, 1988). We contend that researchers who have been searching for substantial gender differences in the realm of abilities have been looking in the wrong place. Multiple theoretical perspectives converge on predictions of large gender differences in some aspects of sexuality. Many of these differences seem to derive from the very different roles that men and women play in the reproductive aspects of sexuality.
In reviewing research published since our 1993 meta-analysis (Oliver & Hyde, 1993), it became clear that a few topics have come to the forefront, particularly mate preference, fantasy, and sexual jealousy. These are all domains in which evolutionary psychologists predict that there should be substantial gender differences. In short, evolutionary psychologists are setting the agenda for research on gender differences in sexuality. Feminist researchers must consider how to recapture the research agenda. It is clear, for example, that not much is known about gender differences in masturbation—particularly about how masturbation plays different roles in sexual development for women compared with men. An understanding of such basic research questions may in turn have implications for sex therapy with women. At the same time, feminist researchers should pursue avenues of research on women and sexuality other than gender differences. These include women’s experience of sexuality during and after menopause, women’s experience of sexuality during pregnancy and postpartum (see chapter 5, this volume, by Hyde & DeLamater), and patterns of sexuality that enhance women’s sexual pleasure.