Oral sex as mate retention behavior

Abstract

Men perform “mate retention” behaviors to reduce the likelihood of their partner’s infidelity. One mate retention strategy men use is to increase their partner’s relationship satisfaction by provisioning her with benefits. We recruited 351 men to investigate whether men perform oral sex on their partner as part of a broader benefit-provisioning mate retention strategy. In support of the predictions, men who reported performing more mate retention behaviors, in general, and more benefit-provisioning mate retention behaviors, in particular, also reported greater interest in and spent more time performing oral sex on their partner. We present limitations of the research and discuss the benefits of an evolutionary perspective for investigating oral sex as a mate retention behavior.

Full text

Short Communication
Oral sex as mate retention behavior
Michael N. Pham
⇑
, Todd K. Shackelford
Oakland University, Department of Psychology, 130 Pryale Hall, Rochester, MI 48309, United States
article info
Article history:
Received 1 January 2013
Received in revised form 8 February 2013
Accepted 13 February 2013
Available online 15 March 2013
Keywords:
Oral sex
Cunnilingus
Mate retention
Infidelity
Benefit-provisioning
abstract
Men perform ‘‘mate retention’’ behaviors to reduce the likelihood of their partner’s infidelity. One mate
retention strategy men use is to increase their partner’s relationship satisfaction by provisioning her with
benefits. We recruited 351 men to investigate whether men perform oral sex on their partner as part of a
broader benefit-provisioning mate retention strategy. In support of the predictions, men who reporte d
performing more mate retention behaviors, in general, and more benefit-provisioning mate retention
behaviors, in particular, also reported greater interest in and spent more time performing oral sex on
their partner. We present limitations of the research and discuss the benefits of an evolutionary perspec-
tive for investigating oral sex as a mate retention behavior.
Ó2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Female infidelity has been documented in dozens of cultures
worldwide, and some published samples estimate that as many
as 70% of women have committed infidelity at least once in their
lifetime (Allen & Baucom, 2006; Buss, 1994; Schmitt, 2003;
Wiederman & Hurd, 1999 ). Men who suspect or discover their
partner’s infidelity may suffer from physical and psychological
problems, including major depression, anxiety, and relationship
dissatisfaction (Cano & O’Leary, 2000; Betzig, 1989 ).
Men perform ‘‘mate retention’’ behaviors to reduce the likeli-
hood of their partner’s infidelity. Buss (1988) identified 19 mate
retention ‘‘tactics’’ that range from subtle to overt (see Table 1).
Buss organized these tactics into five ‘‘categories’’: Direct Guarding ,
Intersexual Negative Inducement s, Intrasexual Negative Induce-
ments, Positive Inducements, and Public Signals of Possessio n. Di-
rect Guarding includes behaviors such as vigilance about one’s
partner’s whereabouts and concealmen t of one’s partner (e.g.,
‘‘I called at unexpected times to see who my partner was with’’).
Intersexual Negative Inducement s include behaviors that manipu-
late and derogate one’s partner (e.g., ‘‘I threatene d to harm myself
if my partner ever left me’’). Intrasexual Negative Inducements in-
clude behaviors intended to deter same-sex rivals from pursuing
one’s partner (e.g., ‘‘I told others my partner was a pain’’). Positive
Inducement s include behaviors that increase the appeal of the cur-
rent relationship to one’s partner (e.g., ‘‘I bought my partner an
expensive gift’’). Public Signals of Possessio n include behaviors that
display to others that one’s relationship is exclusive and commit-
ted (e.g., ‘‘I held my partner’s hand when others of my same sex
were around’’).
Miner, Starratt, and Shackelford (2009) organized the five cate-
gories into two superordina te ‘‘domain s’’: cost-inflicting mate
retention behaviors and benefit-provisioning mate retention
behaviors . Direct Guarding, Intersexual Negative Inducement s,
and Intrasexual Negative Inducement s comprise the cost-inflicting
domain. Behaviors in this domain reduce the risk of partner infidel-
ity by lowering one’s partner’s self-esteem, thereby causing her to
feel undeserving of her current partner but especially of any other
partner (Miner et al., 2009 ). In contrast, Positive Inducements and
Public Signals of Possession comprise the benefit-provisioning do-
main. Behaviors in this domain reduce the risk of partner infidelity
by increasing one’s partner’s relationship satisfaction (Miner et al.,
2009).
1.1. Oral sex and mate retention
Men may perform oral sex on their partner as a means of mate
retention. Men at greater risk of partner infidelity report greater
interest in and spend more time performing oral sex on their part-
ner (Pham & Shackelford , 2013 ). In contrast, men do not typically
perform oral sex on a woman during a casual, sexual encounter
(i.e. ‘‘a one night stand’’; Armstrong, England, Fogarty, & Risman,
2009; Backstrom, Armstrong, & Puentes, 2012; Lewis, Granato,
Blayney, Lostutter, & Kilmer, 2012; Reiber & Garcia, 2010 ), a mat-
ing context that presents no risk of long-term partner infidelity.
We hypothesize that men perform oral sex on their partner as a
mate retention behavior. Specifically, we predict that men who
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.02.012
⇑
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 248 370 2300; fax: +1 248 370 4612.
E-mail address: mnpham@oakland.edu (M.N. Pham).
Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 185–188
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDi rect
Personal ity an d Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

report performi ng more mate retention behaviors , in general, will
report greater interest in (Prediction 1) and spend more time per-
forming (Prediction 2) oral sex on their partner.
Oral sex may be a benefit-provisioning mate retention behavior.
Miner et al. (2009) documented that men at greater risk of partner
infidelity performed more benefit-provisioning mate retention
behaviors, but not more cost-inflicting mate retention behaviors.
Women who receive oral sex from their partner, relative to those
who do not, report greater relationship satisfaction (Kaestle &
Halpern, 2007; Santtila et al., 2008 ). Because greater partner rela-
tionship satisfaction is an outcome of benefit-provisioning mate
retention, we hypothes ize that men perform oral sex on their
partner as part of a benefit-provisioning mate retention strategy.
Specifically, we predict that men who report performing more
benefit-provisioning mate retention behaviors, but not more cost-
inflicting mate retention behaviors, will report greater interest in
(Prediction 3) and spend more time performing (Prediction 4) oral
sex on their partner.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Three hundred and fifty-one men in a committ ed, sexual, heter-
osexual relationship participated in exchange for extra credit in a
course. The mean participa nt age was 24.2 years (SD = 7.2) and
the mean relationship length was 36.3 months (SD = 51.6).
2.2. Materials
Participants reported their age and current relationshi p length
on a questionnair e. Participants completed the Mate Retention
Inventory, which assesses performanc e of 104 mate retention
behaviors (see Buss, 1988 ). On a scale from 0–3, participants re-
ported how frequently they performed each behavior within the
past month (0 = never performed this act ,1=rarely performed this
act,2=sometime s performed this act ,3=often performed this act ).
Participants answered questions about their most recent sexual
encounter with their partner on a 0–9 scale: own interest in per-
forming oral sex (0 = less interested or excited than is typical for
me,9=more interested or excited than is typical for me ), and dura-
tion of oral sex (0 = less time than is typical for me ,9=more time
than is typical for me ).
2.3. Procedures
Potential male participants were asked if they were at least
18 years of age and in a committ ed, sexual, heterosexual relation-
ship. Those who qualified were asked to sign a consent form and to
complete a questionnai re. Participants were asked to place the
complete d questionnai re in an envelope that they then sealed,
and to place the consent form in a separate envelope, to retain
anonymi ty.
3. Results
Following Buss (1988), we constructed 19 mate retention tactic
variables from scores on the Mate Retention Inventory. We corre-
lated scores for each mate retention tactic with scores on the
two oral sex variables (see Table 1). Men who reported greater
interest in performi
ng oral sex on their partner also reported great-
er use of Intrasexu al Threats, Resource Display, Sexual Induce-
ments, Commitmen t Manipula tion, Verbal Signals of Possession,
Physical Signals of Possession, Possessive Ornamentati on, and
Expressions of Love and Care. Men who reported spending more
time performing oral sex on their partner also reported greater
use of Intrasexual Threats, Enhance Physical Appearance , Commit-
ment Manipulation, Resource Display, Sexual Inducement s, Verbal
Signals of Possession, and Physical Signals of Possessio n.
We constructed an overall mate retention variable from the sum
of responses to all 104 items of the Mate Retention Inventory
(
a
= .96). Consistent with Predictions 1 and 2, men who reported
performi ng more mate retention behaviors , in general, also re-
ported greater interest in and spent more time performi ng oral
sex on their partner (see Table 2).
Following Buss (1988), we organized the 19 tactics into five cat-
egories: Direct Guarding (
a
= .84), Intersexu al Negative Induce-
ments (
a
= .79), Intrasexual Negative Inducement s(
a
= .87),
Positive Inducement s(
a
= .89), and Public Signals of Possession
(
a
= .81). We correlate d scores on each of the five categories with
scores on the two oral sex variables. Men who reported performing
more Positive Inducement s and Public Signals of Possessio n also
reported greater interest in and spent more time performing oral
sex on their partner (see Table 2).
Following Miner et al. (2009), we constructed a benefit-provi-
sioning mate retention variable from the sum of responses to the
items in the Positive Inducement s and Public Signals of Possession
categories (
a
= .92). Also following Miner et al., we constructed a
cost-inflicting mate retention variable from the sum of responses
Table 1
Correlations between the two target oral sex variables and the 19 mate retention tactics.
Mate retention tactics Oral sex variables Mate retention tactics Oral sex variables
Interest in performing
oral sex
Duration of
oral sex
Interest in performing
oral sex
Duration of
oral sex
Vigilance .00 .00 Violence .05 .10
Concealment of Mate .02 .04 Intrasexual Threats .11
*
.11
*
Monopolize Mate’s Time .03 .02 Verbal Signals of Possession .24
**
14
**
Enhance Physical Appearance .08 .11
*
Physical Signals of Possession .22
**
.12
*
Punish Mate’s Threat to Infidelity .01 .08 Possessive Ornamentation .18
**
.10
Emotional Manipulation .08 .03 Derogation of Competitors .10 .05
Commitment Manipulation .12
*
.15
**
Submission and Debasement .10 .08
Derogation of Mate to Competitors .04 .02 Expressions of Love and Caring .20
**
.08
Resource Display .11
*
.14
**
Threaten Infidelity .10 .00
Sexual Inducements .12
*
.12
*
n= 351 men.
*
p< .05.
**
p< .01.
186 M.N. Pham, T.K. Shackelford / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 185–188

to the items in the Direct Guarding, Intersexual Negative Induce-
ments, and Intrasexu al Negative Inducement s categories (
a
= .92).
We correlated scores on these two mate retention domains with
responses on the two oral sex variables. Consisten t with Predic-
tions 3 and 4, men who reported performing more benefit-provi-
sioning mate retention behaviors, but not more cost-inflicting
mate retention behaviors, also reported greater interest in and
spent more time performi ng oral sex on their partner (see Table 2).
Finally, we entered the benefit-provisioning mate retention and
cost-inflicting mate retention variables into multiple regression
equations to identify the unique effect each mate retention domain
has on each of the two oral sex variables. Consisten t with Predic-
tions 3 and 4, men who reported performing more benefit-provi-
sioning mate retention behaviors, but not more cost-inflicting
mate retention behaviors, also reported greater interest in and
spent more time performing oral sex on their partner. In fact,
men who reported performing more cost-inflicting mate retention
behaviors reported less interest in performi ng oral sex on their
partner (see Table 3).
4. Discussion
The results are consistent with the hypothesis that men per-
form oral sex on their partner as part of a broader benefit-provi-
sioning mate retention strategy. Men who report performing
more mate retention behaviors, in general, and more benefit-provi-
sioning mate retention behaviors, in particular, report greater
interest in and spend more time performing oral sex on their
partner.
The multiple regression analyses indicate that men who per-
form more cost-inflicting mate retention behaviors report less
interest in performing oral sex on their partner. Although we did
not predict this relationship, this result is consistent with previous
research documenting that the frequenc y with which men perform
benefit-provisioning behaviors is correlate dnegatively with their
cost-inflicting behaviors (Miner et al., 2009 ). Men who provision
their partner with benefits must expend resources (e.g., ‘‘I bought
my partner an expensive gift’’). In contrast, men who inflict costs
on their partner expend fewer resource s, but the costs men inflict
on their partner may lower her relationshi p satisfaction and cause
her to terminat e the relationshi p. Therefore, men who have the re-
sources to provision their partner with benefits also tend to avoid
the risks associated with inflicting costs on her.
A limitation of the current study is the use of men’s self-reports
of their mate retention behaviors. Men may underreport the fre-
quency with which they perform socially undesirable behaviors
(e.g., ‘‘I told others of my same sex that my partner might have a
sexually transmitted disease’’). However, Shackelford, Goetz, and
Buss (2005) documented that both men’s and women’s self-reports
of their mate retention behaviors are positively correlated with
their partner’s reports of these behaviors. Nevertheless, future re-
search may benefit from securing data from both men’s self-re-
ports and their partner’s reports of men’s mate retention
behaviors .
The results of the current study might be explicable, in part, as a
conseque nce of men’s personality traits. Men who are more altru-
istic and agreeable, for example, might be more likely to provision
their partner with benefits, including sexually pleasuring their
partner by performi ng oral sex. Future research may test this
explanat ion by assessing and statistically controlling for standings
on personality traits that predict altruism and other individual dif-
ference correlates of partner-directe d benefit-provisioning
behaviors .
The Mate Retention Inventory (Buss, 1988 ) assesses the fre-
quency with which men perform various mate retention behaviors
within the past month . We asked about men’s oral sex behaviors
during their most recent copulation to ensure that they best remem-
bered the details of, and therefore reported most accurately , their
oral sex behaviors. Future research investigatin g the relationship
between men’s mate retention behaviors and their oral sex behav-
iors may consider securing men’s reports of their oral sex behav-
iors across multiple copulations within the past month , to ensure
that measures of mate retention and oral sex assess behaviors that
occur during the same time span.
An evolutionary perspective provides a useful framework for
researching infidelity. For example, men are more upset than wo-
man about their partner’s sexual infidelity (Buss, Larsen, Westen,
& Semmelroth , 1992; Shackelford & Goetz, 2012 ). Women but
not men who commit sexual infidelity impose reproducti ve costs
on their partner in the form of cuckoldry—the unwitting invest-
ment of time and resource s into offspring to whom their partner
is genetically unrelated. Future research investigatin g the function
of oral sex as a mate retention behavior would profit from adopting
an evolutionar y perspective by assessing sex differences in oral sex
behaviors as a consequence of perceived risk of partner sexual
infidelity.
In conclusion, men perform a diverse array of behaviors de-
signed to minimize the risk of their partner’s infidelity. Men may
appease, threaten, conceal, or emotionally manipulate their part-
ner to dissuade her from committ ing infidelity (Buss, 1988 ). The
current research provides preliminary support for the hypothesis
that oral sex is part of a broader benefit-provisioning male mate
retention strategy.
Table 2
Correlations between scores on the two target oral sex variables with scores on five
mate retention categories, two mate retention domains, and overal l mate retention
behaviors.
Oral sex variables
Interest in performing
oral sex
Duration of oral
sex
Mate retention categories
Direct Guarding .01 .00
Intersexual Negative
Inducements
.05 .07
Intrasexual Negative
Inducements
.06 .09
Positive Inducements .16
**
.14
**
Public Signals of Possession .26
**
.15
**
Mate retention domains
Benefit-provisioning .23
**
.16
**
Cost-inflicting .04 .05
Overall mate retention
behaviors
.13
*
.11
*
n= 351 men.
*
p< .05.
**
p< .01.
Table 3
Multiple regression analyses assessing relat ionships between the two mate retention
domains (benefit-provisioning and cost-inflicting) and the two oral sex variables.
Outcome variable Mate retention domains
Benefit-provisioning Cost-inflicting
Bt Bt
Interest in performing oral sex .12 4.85
***
.04 2.25
*
Duration of oral sex .08 2.93
**
.02 .94
n= 351 men.
B= unstandardized beta coefficient, t= test statistic associated with B.
*
p< .05.
**
p< .01.
***
p< .001.
M.N. Pham, T.K. Shackelford / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 185–188 187

References
Allen, E. S., & Baucom, D. H. (2006). Dating, marital, and hypothetical extradyadic
involvements: How do they compare? The Journal of Sex Research, 43 , 307–317.
Armstrong, E. A., England, P., Fogarty, A. C. K., & Risman, B. J. (2009). Families as they
really are . New York: Norton.
Backstrom, L., Armstrong, E. A., & Puentes, J. (2012). Women’s negotiation of
cunnilingus in college hookups and relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 49 ,
1–12.
Betzig, L. (1989). Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study. Current
Anthropology, 30 , 654–676.
Buss, D. M. (1988). From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in
American undergraduates. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 291–317.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating . New York:
Basic Books.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in
jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3,
251–255.
Cano, A., & O’Leary, K. D. (2000). Infidelity and separations precipitate major
depressive episodes and symptoms of nonspecific depression and anxiety.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68 , 774–783.
Kaestle, C. E., & Halpern, C. T. (2007). What’s love got to do with it? Sexual behaviors
of opposite-sex couples through emerging adulthood. Perspectives on Sexual and
Reproductive Health, 39 , 134–140.
Lewis, M. A., Granato, H., Blayney, J. A., Lostutter, T. W., & Kilmer, J. R. (2012).
Predictors of hooking up sexual behaviors and emotional reactions among U.S.
college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41 , 1219–1229.
Miner, E. J., Starratt, V. G., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). It’s not all about her: Men’s
mate value and mate retention. Personality and Individual Differences, 47 ,
214–218.
Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2013). Oral sex as infidelity-detection. Personality
and Individual Differences, 54 , 792–795.
Reiber, C., & Garcia, J. R. (2010). Hooking up: Gender differences, evolution, and
pluralistic ignorance. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 390–404.
Santtila, P., Wager, I., Katarina, W., Harlaar, N., Jern, P., Johansson, A., et al. (2008).
Discrepancies between sexual desire and sexual activity: Gender differences
and associations with relationship satisfaction. Journal of Sex and Marital
Therapy, 34 , 29–42.
Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests
from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85 , 85–104.
Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of sexual conflict
in humans . New York: Oxford University Press.
Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Mate retention in marriage:
Further evidence of the reliability of the Mate Retention Inventory. Personality
and Individual Differences, 39 , 415–425.
Wiederman, M. W., & Hurd, C. (1999). Extradyadic involvement during dating.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16 , 265–274.
188 M.N. Pham, T.K. Shackelford / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 185–188