Content uploaded by Karen Lyndsay Blair
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karen Lyndsay Blair on Jul 12, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
1&
Can Less Be More? Comparing Duration vs. Frequency of Sexual Encounters in Same-Sex
and Mixed-Sex Relationships
Karen L. Blair1 & Caroline F. Pukall2
1University of Utah, 2Queen’s University
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Dr. David Kremelberg for his guidance on
the statistical analyses used in this paper as well as the KLB Research participants who so openly
shared their time and experiences to make this paper possible.
Corresponding Author:
Karen L. Blair, PhD
KLB Research / University of Utah
www.drkarenblair.com
info@klbresearch.com
Author Contributions: Conceived and designed of the research: KLB. Conducted the research:
KLB. Analyzed the Data: KLB and CFP. Wrote the paper: KLB. Revised and edited the paper:
KLB and CFP.
Paper Accepted by the Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality. Published Online July 7,
2014. DOI: 10.3138/cjhs.2393
http://utpjournals.metapress.com/content/d22571u1g51548wg/
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
2&
Abstract
A commonly measured indicator of a romantic couple’s sexual well-being and
satisfaction has been the frequency with which they engage in sexual activity, or more
specifically, sexual intercourse. Although some have acknowledged that frequency of sexual
intercourse is not an appropriate measure for all types of romantic relationships (e.g. same-sex
couples), the measurement of sexual frequency, of one type or another, has remained fairly
constant throughout sex and relationships research. While precise estimates of sexual frequency
among different types of couples (male/female same-sex vs. mixed-sex) have varied, the general
pattern of findings has often indicated that female same-sex couples report lower sexual
frequencies than other couples. The current study sought to examine an alternate dimension of
sexuality by asking individuals in same-sex and mixed-sex relationships to report the length of
their last sexual encounter as well as the length of their average sexual encounter. A sample of
822 participants reported both length of sexual encounters and frequency of sexual activity.
While the sexual frequency data replicated past findings, with female same-sex couples reporting
the lowest sexual frequencies, sexual duration data painted a very different picture, with female
same-sex couples reporting significantly longer durations spent on individual sexual encounters
than men and women in mixed-sex or male same-sex relationships. Consequently, it is argued
that to better understand the nature of a specific couple’s sexual relationship, it is important to
examine not just sexual frequency, but also the amount of time spent on individual sexual
encounters.
Key Words: sexual frequency, sexual duration, sexual encounters, sexual satisfaction, same-sex
relationships, lesbian bed death, female sexuality, sexual measurement
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
3&
Can Less Be More? Comparing Duration vs. Frequency of Sexual Encounters in Same-Sex and
Mixed-Sex Relationships
How often do you have sex? How often should you have sex? How often do you want to
have sex? Sexual frequency, or the “how often” question, and its various manifestations, is the
most commonly assessed aspect of sexual behaviour within the sex research literature (Cohen &
Byers, 2013; Schwartz & Young, 2009; Scott-Sheldon, Kalichman & Carey, 2010). Sexual
frequency has been linked to both relational (Schwartz & Young, 2009) and sexual satisfaction
(Laumann, Gagnon, Michael & Michael, 1994; Peplau, Fingerhut & Beals, 2004) within couples
and has been assessed across a wide variety of relationship types and compositions (Blair &
Holmberg, 2008; Peplau et al., 2004). Although the conclusions drawn from such group
comparisons (e.g., same-sex versus mixed-sex couples) are not always consistent across studies,
the measurement of sexual frequency remains constant, often to the exclusion of measuring other
aspects of sexual behaviour. One such aspect that has predominantly been ignored is the duration
of individual sexual encounters. The question of how long couples actually spend on individual
sexual encounters has been examined in a handful of studies (e.g., Call, Sprecher & Schwartz,
1995; Cohen & Byers, 2013), and yet this information might be very relevant to our
understanding of quality versus quantity of sexual encounters within romantic relationships.
Consequently, the current study sought to examine both frequency and duration of sexual
encounters within same-sex and mixed-sex relationships.
Sexual Frequency
Sexual frequency is one of the most commonly assessed metrics of sexual activity and is
often included as an important element in assessments of overall sexual functioning. For
example, two scales designed to assess overall sexual functioning or dysfunction, the Female
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
4&
Sexual Functioning Index (Rosen et al., 2000) and the International Index of Erectile
Functioning (Rosen, Riley, Wagner, Osterloh, Kirkpatrick & Misrha, 1997), include questions
about sexual frequency. In fact, the notion that sexual frequency is closely linked to sexual
functioning and satisfaction has reached a point of colloquial acceptance and is often a topic of
concern for couples seeking therapy or advice from pop-psychology (Klienplatz, 2006; Muise,
2002). A recent self-help book, based more on empirical research than many others, suggested
that there was a magical number for sexual frequency in happy couples: 3-4 times per week
(Northrup, Schwartz & Witte, 2013). Despite this claim, others have questioned the value in
promoting “standards” of sexual frequency and have expressed concerns that advocating for
‘normative’ sexual frequency may only lead perfectly happy couples to re-evaluate their
relationships and sex lives against potentially unrealistic performance expectations (McCarthy &
Wald, 2013).
Sexual Duration
Sexual duration as a metric of sexual activity within relationships is a topic that has been
studied far less often within the sex research and relationships literature. Despite this omission,
duration, or the amount of time couples spend on any given sexual encounter, may be a factor
that plays an important role in understanding the nature of a couple’s sex life.
The few studies that have examined duration of sexual encounters report that longer
durations generally include more sexual activities, which are in turn associated with more
frequent orgasms for women (Nichols, 2004; Smith et al., 2012). However, the duration of
sexual encounters is rarely considered a general characteristic of sexual behaviour by
researchers. Rather, the majority of studies that have examined elements of duration have done
so within the context of measuring the duration of vaginal penetration within mixed-sex couples.
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
5&
For example, a study conducted in Japan examined the length of time between initial insertion of
the penis into the vagina and ejaculation and found that the average duration reported ranged
between 13.6 and 14.5 minutes and the study’s conclusions focused on the likelihood of female
orgasm through penile-vaginal intercourse and the implications for reducing premature
ejaculation (Nakajima et al., 2010). Nakajima and colleagues (2010) are not alone in conceiving
of sexual duration as specifically relating to the duration of penetration, with the majority of
studies including the concept of duration doing so for the purpose of examining length of penile-
vaginal penetration (Powers, 2012; Weiss & Brody, 2009), a sexual behaviour that is not equally
relevant to all types of couples (i.e., same-sex couples; Armstrong & Reissing, 2013).
A handful of studies have examined the duration of sexual encounters as entire sexual
events that are not solely limited to penile-vaginal intercourse (Call et al., 1995; Richters et al.,
2006; Smith et al., 2012). Miller and Byers (2004) assessed the differences between actual and
desired duration of both foreplay and intercourse in a sample of long-term mixed-sex couples
and found that the average length of a sexual encounter, including both foreplay and intercourse,
was 19 minutes. Although men and women in the study both had similar estimates of actual
duration of sexual encounters, both reported longer ideal durations. This finding is supported by
other studies which have reported that individuals tend to report a greater desire for foreplay and
the more “sensual” aspects of sexual intercourse that do not directly revolve around penile-
vaginal intercourse (Byers, 2011; Holmberg & Blair, 2009). The average length of a sexual
encounter reported in the Miller and Byers (2004) is somewhat shorter than what has been
reported by other studies, also conducted with samples of mixed-sex couples. Nagao and
colleagues (2014) found a median length of 30 minutes for women in Japan, including foreplay,
intercourse and afterplay while a national study of mixed-sex couples in Australia reported that
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
6&
the average length of a sexual encounter ranged from 8.5 minutes to 29.5 minutes, depending on
the number of activities included in a couple’s sexual encounter (Richters, 2006). Comparatively,
the average duration of a sexual encounter in a female same-sex couple was found to be 57
minutes (Cohen & Byers, 2013), considerably longer than any of the averages reported in the
studies relying solely upon mixed-sex couples.
Cohen and Byers (2013) are not alone in reporting that women in same-sex relationships
report longer durations of sexual encounters; the notion has been anecdotally suggested by
Iasenza (2002) and Frye (1992) who dated that while lesbians may have sex less frequently than
heterosexual couples, their average duration of sex is upwards of thirty minutes, compared to an
average of approximately 8 in heterosexual couples. Empirical support for these assertions has
been provided by the Institute for Personal Growth’s female sexuality survey, which found that
women in same-sex relationships reported longer durations of sexual encounters (30-60 minutes)
compared to women in mixed-sex relationships (10-30 minutes).
Associations with Relationship & Sexual Satisfaction
But how do the frequency and duration of a couple’s sexual encounters interact with their
overall relationship and sexual satisfaction? The frequency with which couples engage in sexual
activity with one another has consistently been linked to both relationship and sexual satisfaction
(Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Laumann et al., 1994; Peplau, Fingerhut & Beals, 2004). Russell
and McNulty (2011) even found that greater sexual frequency alleviated the negative impact of
neuroticism on relational outcomes in mixed-sex relationships, such that while neuroticism
predicted negative relationship outcomes, individuals who were neurotic but also frequently
engaged in sexual activity with their partner were spared these negative relational outcomes.
Meltzer and McNulty (2010) found that women in mixed-sex relationships who had more
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
7&
positive body images reported more frequent sexual activity with their partners, which was, in
turn, associated with greater marital satisfaction.
Given that the duration of sexual encounters has been studied far les often than sexual
frequency, it is not surprising that there are fewer studies reporting on the associations between
duration and relationship and/or sexual satisfaction. The studies that have addressed this issue
have not found strong links between the duration of encounters and relationship or sexual
satisfaction. Call and colleagues (1995) examined the frequency of sex within a national sample
of heterosexual married couples and found that the duration of sexual contact was not associated
with sexual satisfaction. Similarly, while Miller and Byers (2004) did not directly examine the
association between duration and sexual satisfaction, they did examine the discrepancies between
actual and desired duration of sexual encounters and found that these discrepancies were not
associated with sexual satisfaction. In other words, even if couples reported that they desired
considerably longer sexual encounters, this unmet desire did not appear to be associated with
their overall levels of sexual satisfaction.
Group Differences
Although quite a few studies have compared sexual frequency between members of
same-sex and mixed-sex couples, no studies to date have directly compared duration of sexual
encounters in male and female same-sex couples as well as mixed-sex couples. Consequently,
while we know a fair bit about how these three types of relationships compare to one another
with respect to sexual frequency, what we know about sexual duration is largely based on
comparing results from separate studies. One study that did compare all three groups, the famous
American Couples Study from 1983, found that female same-sex couples reported significantly
lower rates of sexual frequency when compared to male same-sex and mixed-sex couples
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
8&
(Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983). The study found that after ten years of being together, only 1%
of lesbian couples reported that they had sex more than two times per week, compared to 18% of
mixed-sex couples and 11% of male same-sex couples (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983).
However, others have questioned the accuracy of what we know about how these three
types of relationships compare based on sexual frequency, based on critiques of how sexual
frequency is often operationalized (Iasenza, 2002; Nichols, 2004). More often than not, sexual
frequency questions ask women how often they have engaged in penetrative forms of sex
(Nichols, 2004). Even when questionnaires are seemingly adapted for sexual minority women by
removing the requirement of penile-vaginal intercourse, many still make the assumption that
penetration is the defining aspect of sexual behaviour (Boehmer, Timm, Ozonoff, & Potter,
2012), when in fact, many, if not most, women in same-sex relationships place a greater
emphasis on other sexual activities, including oral sex (Cohen & Byers, 2013; Iasenza, 2002).
When using definitions of sex that are removed from heterocentric definitions, many studies
have reported no differences in sexual frequency between women in same-sex versus mixed-sex
relationships (Cohen & Byers, 2013; Matthews, Tartaro, & Hughes, 2003; Nichols, 2004). Some
studies have even reported that women in same-sex relationships report higher sexual frequency
than women in mixed-sex relationships (Henderosn, Lehavot & Simoni, 2009). Ultimately, in a
comprehensive review of the literature concerning sexual minority women’s sexual functioning,
Armstrong and Reissing (2013) concluded that “while women in same-sex relationships may
engage in vaginal penetration less frequently than women in mixed-sex relationships, frequency
of oral sex may be the same or higher for women who have sex with women” (p. 388-9).
Consequently, it has been argued that sexual frequency may not be the best measure to use when
attempting to assess the sexual health of female same-sex relationships (Cohen & Byers, 2013;
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
9&
Iasenza, 2002; Nichols, 2004), given that women in same-sex relationships may engage in a
more diverse range of sexual activities than those that are typically represented by most measures
of sexual frequency, and may also engage in those activities for a longer period of time (Nichols,
2004). While using measures other than frequency for female same-sex couples makes intuitive
sense, might it not make just as much sense within the context of male same-sex and mixed-sex
relationships, if the ultimate goal is to seek a deeper and more holistic understanding of sexual
behaviour and health?
Current Study
The current study sought to examine both sexual frequency and duration of individual
sexual encounters using a sample of men and women in mixed-sex and same-sex relationships,
allowing for multiple comparisons. Additionally, we sought to investigate the associations
between sexual frequency, duration of sexual encounters and overall measures of relationship
and sexual satisfaction in order to shed light on the question of which metric provides more
information about relationship outcomes. Participants reported the length of their last sexual
encounter with their partner, the length of their average sexual encounter with their partner and
the frequency with which they engaged in sexual activity with their partner.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited to the study using online advertisements, messages sent to
listservs, on-campus announcements, in-print magazine ads, snowballing methods and invitations
sent to previous study participants. In total, 1294 individuals accessed the survey, and of these,
63 did not respond to any questions, 115 were removed from the current analyses because they
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
10&
indicated that they were not currently in a romantic relationship, 26 selected the ‘decline
response’ option when asked about the length of their last sexual encounter and an additional 268
participants did not provide a response to this same question. Missing data analysis indicated that
individuals who selected decline response or who did not complete this question (and many
surrounding questions) differed on two variables: relationship length and sexual satisfaction.
Individuals providing responses (and who are included in this analysis) had been in their
relationships approximately 9 months longer (52.9 vs. 43.9 months) and reported higher levels of
sexual satisfaction (3.1 vs. 2.8). Of the 294 individuals not included due to missing data, only 79
of these individuals provided data on sexual satisfaction, and thus this difference is based on very
different sample sizes (79 vs. 810), however, it may be that individuals with lower levels of
sexual satisfaction were less likely to complete the questionnaires that were specifically related
to their sexual behaviours and perceptions.
The final sample included 822 individuals ranging in age from 18 to 79, with a mean age
of 30 (SD = 10.63). The majority of participants were female (61.4%), white (89.8%), and
resided in Canada (38.2%) or the United States (46%). Participants were well educated, with the
majority reporting having at least an undergraduate degree, although more than half of the
sample (57.6%) reported personal annual incomes less than $36,000.00. Nearly half of the
sample reported identifying with the labels gay or lesbian (48.3%), slightly fewer identified as
straight (43.8%), and a minority reported identifying as bisexual (5.4%) or unlabeled (2.5%). All
participants were in romantic relationships, the average length of which was 52.9 months, or
nearly 4.5 years. Relationship durations varied greatly, from as little as one week to a maximum
of just over 38 years (SD = 62.3 months). Just over half of the relationships were classified as
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
11&
being same-sex (51.8%). Tables 1 and 2 present the demographic and relationship variables of
the full sample.
Measures
Personal & Relationship Demographics. Participants were asked to provide a number
of personal and relational demographics, including their gender (male, female, trans woman,
trans man), sexual identity (lesbian, gay, bisexual, straight, other), sexual orientation
(heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, other), age, personal and household income, education
level, ethnicity, nationality, length of relationship (in months), gender of their partner, and the
stage of their relationship.
Sexual Frequency. Sexual frequency was estimated based on two questions drawn from
a larger questionnaire about sexual satisfaction and functioning. Participants were asked to
respond to two questions using a 5-point ordinal scale ranging from ‘never’ to ‘always.’ One
item asked “do you have sex more than twice per week?” and the second asked, “are there weeks
in which you do not have sex at all?”
Duration of Sexual Encounters. To measure the amount of time participants spent on an
individual sexual encounter, participants were asked to respond to two separate questions. The
first question asked participants “how long did your last sexual encounter with your partner
last?” The second question asked participants “how long does your average sexual encounter
with your partner last?” Participants responded on a 7-point ordinal scale, ranging from less than
10 minutes to more than 2 hours.
Kinsey Scale (Kinsey, Pomeroy & Martin, 2003). This measure consists of a single
question that assesses the sexual attraction and behaviour of individuals towards members of the
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
12&
same and opposite sex. Participants selected a response on a 7-point scale (0 = exclusively
heterosexual, 6 = exclusively homosexual).
Hendrick’s Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick, 1988). This seven-item
scale measures general relationship satisfaction. Higher scores on this scale are related to greater
levels of satisfaction. The authors of this scale reported high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .86),
similar to the current study, a = .88.
Sexual Satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction was measured by taking the mean of the
standardized scores of two single-item questions about overall sexual satisfaction. The first item
asked “do you find your sexual relationship with your partner satisfactory?” and the second item
asked “over the past four weeks, how satisfied have you been with your overall sex life?” The
two items were positively correlated with each other prior to being standardized, r = .701, p <
.001. A mean of the standardized z-scores was used as the final measure of overall sexual
satisfaction.
Procedure
The study was completed online, with participants initially setting up a user account by
registering and selecting a self-determined username and password after completing an informed
consent process. Participants then used these login credentials to access the surveys, which were
divided into four sections. The sections automatically linked to each other so that a participant
could continue from one to the next, but this also provided participants with the ability to save
their progress and return at a later time. Participants received participation points as they
progressed through the surveys, as per Blair and Holmberg, 2008. Points could be entered into
prize draws (1 point = 1 entry) or could be donated to a variety of different charities (1000 points
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
13&
= $1 donation). The average participant earned between 4000 and 6000 points during their
participation.
Results
Data Analysis
Prior to conducting any analyses, the data were cleaned and evaluated for violation of
assumptions. Participants were then grouped according to their gender and relationship type,
resulting in four groups: women in same-sex relationships, men in same-sex relationships,
women in mixed-sex relationships and men in mixed-sex relationships. All group comparisons
were conducted using these four groups. Table 1 presents the sample sizes for each group.
Groups differed from each other on two demographic variables: age and relationship length, as
shown in Table 2. Men in same-sex relationships reported having been in their relationships
longer than those in the other three groups (Welch’s F(3, 305.70) = 11.35, p < .001; Post-hoc
Games-Howell comparisons all < .001) and all four groups significantly differed from each other
with respect to age (Welch’s F(3, 352.33) = 54.44, p < .001; Post-hoc Games-Howell
comparisons all < .01), with men in same-sex relationships being the oldest (M = 36.09, SD =
12.68), followed by women in same-sex relationships (M = 31.70, SD = 11.40), men in mixed-
sex relationships (M = 27.95, SD = 6.50) and women in mixed-sex relationships (M = 25.23, SD
= 6.26). Consequently, age and relationship length were used as covariates in all group
comparison analyses. In all cases, the variables to be compared were either ordinal or violated
the assumption of normality. Consequently, non-parametric ANCOVAs were used to assess
group differences, following the procedure outlined by Quade (1967), in which each variable
was ranked and then the ranked covariates (age and relationship length) were regressed upon the
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
14&
ranked version of the variable in question. ANOVAs were run using the saved residuals from the
regressions. Consequently, the means reported are the means of the saved residuals.
Sexual Frequency
Figures 1 and 2 display the percentages within each relationship type endorsing each
response option with respect to the sexual frequency questions. Figure 1 presents responses to
the question concerning whether participants have sex more than two times per week and Figure
2 presents responses to the question concerning whether there are weeks in which participants do
not have sex at all.
Non-parametric ANCOVAs were run to compare the measures of sexual frequency
across the four groups. When examining the first measure of sexual frequency, which asked
participants whether they had sex more than two times per week, a statistically significant
difference was found among the four groups, Welch’s F(3,306.23) = 9.027, p <.001. Games-
Howell post-hoc analyses revealed that women in same-sex relationships reported having sex
more than two times per week less often than the other three groups (M = -64.91): men in same-
sex relationships (M = 28.5, p <.001), women in mixed-sex relationships (M = 11.96, p <.001),
and men in mixed-sex relationships (M = 36.86, p <.01). The other three groups did not differ
significantly from one another.
A slightly different pattern of results was found for the second question examining sexual
frequency, where participants were asked if there were weeks in which they did not engage in
any sexual activity with their partner. The non-parametric ANCOVA showed significant group
differences, F(3,708) = 7.294, p <.001. Fischer’s LSD post-hoc analyses revealed that women in
same-sex relationships (M = 52.46) and men in mixed-sex relationships (M = 34.94) reported
that there were weeks in which they had no sex at all more frequently than men in same-sex
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
15&
relationships and (M = -33.52, p < .001 / p < .05) women in mixed-sex relationships (M = -25.05,
p < .001 / p < .05). Women in same-sex relationships and men in mixed-sex relationships did not
significantly differ from one another, nor did women in mixed-sex relationships and men in
same-sex relationships.
Duration of Sexual Encounters
Figures 3 and 4 display the percentages within each relationship type endorsing each of
the response options concerning the length of their last sexual encounter and the average length
of their sexual encounters, respectively. Non-parametric ANCOVAs were used to compare the
four groups based on their reported duration of their last sexual encounter with their partner as
well as the reported duration of their average sexual encounter with their partner.
Duration of last sexual encounter. The non-parametric ANCOVA revealed significant
group differences in reported length of last sexual encounter, F(2,725) = 22.237, p < .001.
Fisher’s LSD post-hoc comparisons revealed that women in same-sex relationships reported
significantly longer sexual encounter durations than all other comparison groups (M = 101.75):
men in same-sex relationships (M = 3.74, p <.001), women in mixed-sex relationships (M = -
56.11, p <.001), and men in mixed-sex relationships (M = -60.57, p <.001). Additionally, men in
same-sex relationships reported significantly longer sexual encounter durations than men (p
<.05) and women in mixed-sex relationships (p <.005). Men and women in mixed-sex
relationships did not differ significantly from one another in their reported durations of their last
sexual encounters.
Duration of average sexual encounter. The non-parametric ANCOVA revealed
significant group differences in reported length of average sexual encounter, Welch’s F(3,316.7)
= 33.883, p <.001. Games-Howell post-hoc comparisons revealed that women in same-sex
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
16&
relationships reported significantly longer durations for their average sexual encounters than all
three comparison groups (M = 122.51): men in same-sex relationships (M = -21.85, p <.001),
women in mixed-sex relationships (M = -50.48, p <.001), and men in mixed-sex relationships (M
= -54.11, p <.001). The other three groups did not differ significantly from one another.
Relationship and Sexual Satisfaction
Sexual satisfaction was measured using the mean score of two standardized indicators of
sexual satisfaction. For ease of interpretation, descriptive statistics for each of these separate
measures are reported. For group comparisons, a non-parametric ANCOVA including the
covariates of age and relationship length was used. Participants reported a mean score of 3.80
(SD = 1.22) on the measure of overall sexual satisfaction over the preceding four weeks. When
asked if participants found their sexual relationship with their partner to be satisfactory, the mean
score was 3.12 (SD = .93). Both of these means are above the mid-point of the respective scales,
indicating that participants in the current study reported moderate to high levels of sexual
satisfaction. The scores on each measure were standardized and a mean score was taken for the
purposes of group comparisons. A one-way non-parametric ANCOVA comparing the mean
sexual satisfaction score among the different relationship types with age and relationship length
entered as covariates revealed no significant differences, F(3,720) = .176, p = .913.
The mean relationship satisfaction score was 6.0 (SD = .9) on a scale with a maximum
score of 7, indicating that participants in this sample were in very satisfying relationships. A one-
way nonparametric ANCOVA comparing relationship satisfaction scores between the different
relationship types revealed no significant differences, F(3,722) = .202, p = .895.
Correlations. In order to assess how duration of sexual encounters and frequency of
sexual activity were associated with relationship and sexual satisfaction, a series of Spearman’s
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
17&
Rho correlations were run. The correlations are presented in Table 3, and show that both duration
and frequency are positively and significantly correlated with both relationship and sexual
satisfaction, as well as with each other.
Predicting sexual satisfaction. A multiple regression was run to predict sexual
satisfaction from length of last sexual encounter and sexual frequency, while controlling for age
and relationship length. The assumptions of linearity, independence of errors, homoscedasticity,
unusual points and normality of residuals were met. Length of last sexual encounter and sexual
frequency significantly predicted sexual satisfaction, as measured by the mean of the
standardized scores, described above, F(5,700) = 70.823, R2 = .336, adj. R2 = .331, p < .001. All
coefficients were statistically significant and in the predicted directions, such that longer
durations and more frequent sexual activity were associated with greater sexual satisfaction.
Together, the length of last sexual encounter and sexual frequency explained 33% of the variance
in sexual satisfaction. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 4.
Predicting relationship satisfaction. A multiple regression was run to predict
relationship satisfaction from length of last sexual encounter and sexual frequency, while
controlling for age and relationship length. The assumptions of linearity, independence of errors,
homoscedasticity, unusual points and normality of residuals were met. Length of last sexual
encounter and sexual frequency significantly predicted relationship satisfaction, as measured by
the mean of the standardized scores, described above, F(5,698) = 9.525, R2 = .064 adj. R2 = .057,
p < .001. The coefficients for duration of last sexual encounter and frequency of weeks with no
sex at all were in the expected directions, while the coefficient for frequency of engaging in sex
more than two times per week was in the opposite direction than would be expected (negative),
such that reporting more frequent weeks where sex occurred more than two times was negatively
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
18&
associated with relationship satisfaction. Together, the variables explained roughly 6% of the
variance in relationship satisfaction. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in
Table 5.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore the concepts of sexual frequency and sexual
duration simultaneously within a sample of individuals in same-sex and mixed-sex relationships.
To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine both of these concepts among male and
female same-sex couples as well as mixed-sex couples. Similar to past research (e.g. Blumstein
& Schwartz, 1983), the women in same-sex relationships reported lower levels of sexual
frequency than both men in same-sex relationships and men and women in mixed-sex
relationships. The reduced levels of sexual frequency identified within lesbian relationships by
Blumstein & Schwartz (1983) ultimately came to be referred to as ‘lesbian bed death,’ a term
that has since been heavily critiqued concerning its reliance on heteronormative understandings
of sexual activity and behaviour. The women in same-sex relationships in the current study were
far from reporting a complete lack of sexual activity, suggesting that the mythical ‘lesbian bed
death’ was not present for participants in this study. When examining duration of sexual
encounters, the opposite pattern was found, with women in same-sex relationships reporting
significantly longer durations of sexual encounters than both men in same-sex relationships and
men and women in mixed-sex relationships. Finally, the two measures of sexual frequency along
with the duration of a participant’s last sexual encounter were all predictors of sexual
satisfaction, such that the more frequently a person engaged in sex and the longer the duration of
their last sexual encounter, the greater their reported sexual satisfaction. The same variables also
predicted relationship satisfaction, to a lesser extent, and with the anomaly of more frequently
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
19&
reporting weeks of having sex more than two times being associated with poorer relationship
satisfaction. Overall, this study lends empirical evidence to previous conjecture that sexual
frequency may not be the best measure of sexual health and quality of sex life for women in
same-sex relationships. Additionally, the discrepancies in sexual duration raise important
questions about how we study sexual behaviour in all types of couples.
Sexual Frequency
Taken together, the two questions assessing sexual frequency indicate that while women
in same-sex relationships within this sample do appear to report lower frequencies of sexual
activity than individuals in male same-sex or mixed-sex relationships, their levels of sexual
frequency are only slightly lower. Furthermore, upon examining the sexual frequency question
related to how often individuals experience weeks with no sex at all, women in same-sex
relationships did not differ significantly from men in mixed-sex relationships. This conclusion is
consistent with recent studies on sexual frequency in female same-sex couples that have
concluded that, when measured properly, sexual frequency in these couples does not support the
myth of lesbian bed death (e.g. Cohen & Byers, 2013).
In general, an equal percentage of participants from each relationship type indicated that
there were always weeks in which they did not engage in sexual activity (9.8% to 10.8%). This
question can be difficult to interpret, as indicating that there are always weeks in which one does
not engage in sexual activity could indicate that of the four weeks in each month, there is always
at least one in which they do not engage in sexual activity. This could easily occur for any
number of reasons, such as being apart due to travel or work obligations, or juggling time
commitments involved in child-rearing or other activities. Additionally, given varied levels of
comfort with sex during women’s menstrual cycles (Rempel & Baumgartner, 2003), having a
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
20&
single week (or possibly two weeks in female same-sex couples) where sex does not occur could
be quite common among those with lower levels of comfort. Consequently, even a response of
“always” to this question does not indicate that participants are never engaging in sexual activity,
simply that there are always some weeks in which they do not engage in sexual activity. With
respect to the lack of significant difference on this question between women in same-sex
relationships and men in mixed-sex relationships (perhaps the two groups expected to differ the
most), this may be an indication that weeks without sex are somehow more salient for men in
mixed-sex relationships, such that they are more easily recalled, possibly inflating their estimate
of how many weeks they go without sex.
Sexual Duration
Women in same-sex relationships reported significantly longer durations of sexual
encounters than individuals in all three comparison groups, with their median duration falling
within the 30 to 45 minute range, compared to the 15 to 30 minute range most commonly
reported by participants in other types of relationships. Overall, the pattern of results
demonstrates that women in same-sex relationships are spending significantly longer amounts of
time on individual sexual encounters than are men in same-sex relationships or men and women
in mixed-sex relationships. Furthermore, very few women in same-sex relationships reported
very brief sexual encounters, possibly providing a hint as to why their sexual frequency numbers
tend to be lower than the other three groups. Time availability has been suggested as a
contributing factor to sexual frequency (Gager & Yabiku, 2010), but time availability must be
considered in conjunction with time commitment. If the average time commitment for a sexual
encounter is 30-45 minutes for a woman in a same-sex relationship, with the realistic possibility
of the time commitment extending to beyond an hour, she will need significantly more
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
21&
“available” time than an individual whose average sexual encounter lasts only 15-30 minutes, or
possibly less. Consequently, to the extent that dedicated blocks of time of 30-45 minutes or
longer are less frequently available, the frequency of sexual encounters will likely decrease.
The notion of exchanging frequency for duration fits well with Kleinplatz’s theories on
optimal sexuality, where she repeatedly warns against engaging in mediocre sex simply for the
sake of engaging in sexual activity (Kleinplatz, 2006). It is difficult to imagine the levels of
intense intimacy and synchronicity described by Kleinplatz (Kleinplatz & Menard, 2007;
Kleinplatz, Menard, Paradis, Campbell & Dalgleish, 2013) being routinely reached through
sexual encounters lasting less than 10 or even 15 minutes. In developing her conceptualization of
optimal sexuality, Kleinplatz builds upon the experiences of individuals who describe their
sexual encounters as moments of transcendence marked by the extremes of sexual and erotic
intimacy (Kleinplatz & Menard, 2007). Expanding from this work, one might conclude that it is
not simply a matter of sexual frequency, but also the level of intimacy achieved during a given
encounter, and perhaps then also the duration of that encounter, that might contribute to the
overall quality and intensity of a given sexual relationship. Consequently, while women in same-
sex relationships might in some cases be having sex less frequently, might the sex that they are
having be more closely approximating the notion of ‘optimal sexuality’ than the more frequent,
yet briefer, encounters engaged in by other couples? Future research should examine this
question further.
Relationship and Sexual Satisfaction
Despite the group differences between sexual frequency and sexual duration, there were
no significant differences in reported relationship or sexual satisfaction among the four groups.
This pattern of results and lack of differences in relationship and sexual satisfaction could be
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
22&
indicative that individuals are simply satisfied with what they are used to and what they perceive
to be “typical” for their relationship. This is not to say, however, that sexual frequency and
sexual duration are not associated with relationship and sexual satisfaction. The correlation and
regression analyses indicated that both frequency and duration were positively associated with
relationship and sexual satisfaction. While frequency accounted for more variation in both
outcomes, the duration of encounters remained a significant predictor of both relationship and
sexual satisfaction.
Given the established links between sexual satisfaction, relationship well-being and even
mental and physical health (Blair & Holmberg, 2008; Holmberg, Blair & Phillips, 2010; Dargie,
Blair, Pukall & Coyle, in press), future research should more closely examine the associations
between sexual duration and frequency and satisfaction outcomes, specifically within contexts
where one or the other of these sexual aspects might experience a change. For example, would
sexual satisfaction in female same-sex relationships increase if they traded shorter durations for
greater frequencies, or vice versa in male same-sex and mixed-sex relationships?
Additionally, this study only sought information on the length of individuals’ last sexual
encounters and their average sexual encounters. It may be that some couples frequently engage
in brief sexual encounters, making their frequency higher and their average duration shorter, but
occasionally engage in longer sexual encounters. It is possible that the true answer to relationship
and sexual satisfaction might lie in finding the right balance between frequency and duration,
such that less frequent, longer encounters might disproportionately contribute to overall
satisfaction. To the extent that men and women have different sexual desires and motives
(Holmberg & Blair, 2009), it may be that a combination of frequent brief encounters within
mixed-sex relationships serves to satisfy one partner, while the less frequent, longer encounters
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
23&
serve to satisfy the other partner. However, a gendered understanding of sexual desire for
frequency versus duration would predict that men in same-sex relationships would report very
frequent and brief encounters while women would report less frequent, but significantly longer,
encounters. While the latter part of this prediction is indeed supported by the results of this study,
the former is not. This pattern suggests that the balance between sexual frequency and duration
may be less driven by gender differences in sexuality, and more so by relationship-type
differences (same-sex vs. mixed-sex). Relationship type differences may be more likely given
the greater malleability of sexual scripts within same-sex relationships, compared to mixed-sex
relationships, which tend to display, on average, relatively rigid and phallocentric sexual scripts
(Byers, 2011; Cohen & Byers, 2013; Iasenza, 2002; O’Mara, 2012).
Strengths and Limitations
While this study was strengthened by being the first to examine sexual frequency and
duration among a large and diverse sample of men and women in both same-sex and mixed-sex
relationships, the study was limited by a few factors. The measures used to assess frequency and
duration were ordinal in nature. Consequently, we were unable to provide a more specific
estimate of average sexual frequencies or durations, but had to, rather, rely on ranges and
categorical descriptors. The study also did not include a complete measure of sexual satisfaction,
requiring sexual satisfaction to be estimated by the combination of individual items assessing the
construct. Better measures of all three of these constructs would have allowed for a more detailed
investigation of the relationships between these variables. Finally, all of these measures are
subject to potential self-report biases and the (in)ability of individuals to accurately recall
information about their sexual behaviours. It is possible that other factors related to relationship
type or gender may influence participants’ abilities to accurately recall the frequency or duration
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
24&
of their sexual encounters. It is also possible that different individuals may have interpreted the
questions differently, making it impossible for us to know whether each individual in the study
interpreted each question in an equivalent manner. For example, participants may have differed
in their understanding of the term sexual encounter, with some reporting specifically about their
experiences of sexual intercourse while others may have included the surrounding activities. If
such interpretation differences did exist, this could be a contributing factor to the reported
differences in sexual duration.
Future Directions & Conclusions
Despite the limitations inherent in this study, the study has concretely demonstrated that
sexual frequency and sexual duration are very different constructs that result in dissimilar group
differences when comparing same-sex and mixed-sex relationships. Very few studies to date
have examined sexual duration as a construct of interest when attempting to understand and
describe the nature of sexual relationships, both same-sex and mixed-sex. While some have
reported that sexual duration is not associated with sexual satisfaction (Call et al., 1995), this was
not the case in the present study. Future research should more closely examine how various
trade-offs between duration and frequency might uniquely influence sexual and relationship
satisfaction outcomes. Future research should also attempt to make use of more specific
measures of sexual frequency and duration than were used in the current study. Diary studies
may be particularly useful for this purpose, allowing participants to report their sexual frequency
on an ongoing basis and to even provide more accurate timings of their sexual encounters
through the incorporation of modern technology (e.g., smartphones, ambulatory physiological
measurement devices). Qualitative studies should investigate the various meanings that
individuals ascribe to sexual frequency versus duration. Do individuals in same-sex relationships
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
25&
have different expectations about sexual frequency versus duration and do these expectations
ultimately influence their behaviour? Some writings on the topic of sexual duration among
female same-sex relationships tend to imply that the longer durations of sexual encounters may
be a point of pride for women in same-sex relationships, which may then affect the manner in
which participants respond to questions about their sexual durations. For example, while
individuals in mixed-sex relationships may feel pressured to report higher frequencies, it may be
that individuals in same-sex relationships (particularly women) feel pressured to report longer
durations. Consequently, understanding the expectations and normalized beliefs surrounding
sexual frequency and duration within different relationship types could be a key to discovering
various sources of measurement bias for each of these constructs.
Finally, future research should incorporate the construct of sexual duration with the aim
of seeking a more holistic understanding of sexual functioning and satisfaction. Ultimately, a
couple’s sexual frequency and duration of sexual encounters only matters to the extent that each
of these constructs is fulfilling the couples’ desires and needs. Understanding more about how
these two constructs interact with one another and potentially change over time could help sexual
and relationship therapists provide more constructive and informed support to their clients. An
individual’s preference for a specific sexual frequency or average duration of sexual encounter
may be as nuanced as their preferences for specific sexual activities and positions. Research in
this area must be cognizant of avoiding “gold standards” and notions of normalized sexual
behaviour. The lack of differences in relationship and sexual satisfaction, despite the differences
in sexual frequency and duration, may be an indication that satisfaction is largely driven by
perception. Just as the American Couple’s Study tended to contribute to a sense of panic among
female same-sex couples concerning the feared notion of ‘lesbian bed death,’ future research
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
26&
must be careful to avoid disseminating similar characterizations of any specific type of couple
that might lead to unwarranted cause for concern among otherwise happy and satisfied couples.
&
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
27&
References
Armstrong, H.L. & Reissing, E.D. (2013). Women who have sex with women: A comprehensive
review of the literature and conceptual model of sexual function. Sexual and Relationship
Therapy, 28(4), 364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2013.807912
Blair, K.L. & Holmberg, D. (2008). Perceived social network support and well-being in same-
sex versus mixed-sex relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(5),
769-781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096695
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American Couples: Money, Work and Sex. New York:
Morrow.
Boehmer, U., Ozonoff, A., Timm, A., Winter, M., & Potter, J. (2013). After breast cancer:
Sexual functioning of sexual minority survivors. Journal of Sex Research, 0(0), 1-9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.772087
Boehmer, U., Timm, A., Ozonoff, A., & Potter, J. (2012). Applying the Female Sexual
Functioning Index to Sexual Minority Women. Journal of Women’s Health, 21(4), 401.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2011.3072
Byers, E.S. (2011). Beyond the birds and the bees and was it good for you?: Thirty years of
research on sexual communication. Canadian Psychology, 52(1), 20-28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022048
Call, V., Sprecher, S., & Schwartz, P. (1995). The incidence and frequency of marital sex in a
national sample. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(3), 639-652.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/353919
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
28&
Chen, X., Zhang, Q., & Tan, X. (2012). Prevalence of sexual activity and associated factors in
hypertensive males and females in China: A cross-sectional study. BioMed Central Public
Health, 12(1), 364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-364
Cohen, J.N. & Byers, E.S. (2013). Beyond lesbian bed death: Enhancing our understanding of
the sexuality of sexual-minority women in relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 0(0), 1-
11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.795924
Dargie, E., Blair, K.L., Pukall, C.F., & Coyle, S. (in press). Somewhere under the rainbow:
Exploring the identities and experiences of trans persons. Canadian Journal of Human
Sexuality.
Dunn, O.J. (1964). Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics, 6(3), 241.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1266041
Frye, M. (1992). Willful virgin: Essays in feminism. Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press.
Gager, C.T. & Yabiku, S.T. (2010). Who has the time? The relationship between household
labor time and sexual frequency. Journal of Family Issues, 31(2), 135-163.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0192513X09348753
Henderson, A.W., Lehavot, K., & Simoni, J.M. (2009). Ecological models of sexual satisfaction
among Lesbian/Bisexual and Heterosexual women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(1),
50-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-0384-3
Hendrick, S.S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 50(1), 93-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352430
Holmberg, D. & Blair, K.L. (2009). Sexual desire, communication, satisfaction and preferences
of men and women in same-sex versus mixed-sex relationships. Journal of Sex Research,
46(1), 57-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490802645294
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
29&
Holmberg, D., Blair, K.L., & Phillips, M. (2010). Women’s sexual satisfaction as a predictor of
well-being in same-sex versus mixed-sex relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 46(1), 1-
11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490902898710
Iasenza, S. (2002). Beyond ‘lesbian bed death’: the passion and play in lesbian relationships.
Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6(1), 111-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J155v06n01_10
Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., & Martin, C.E. (2003). Sexual behaviour in the human male.
Journal of Public Health, 93(6), 894-898. http://dx.doi.org/10.2015/AJPH.93.6.894
Kleinplatz, P.J. (2006). Learning from extraordinary lovers. Journal of Homosexuality, 50(2/3),
325-348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v50n02_16
Kleinplatz, P.J. & Menard, A.D. (2007). Building blocks toward optimal sexuality: Constructing
a conceptual model. The Family Journal, 15(1), 72-78.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1066480706294126
Kleinplatz, P.J., Menard, A.D., Paradis, N., Campbell, M. & Dalgleish, T.L. (2013). Beyond
sexual stereotypes: Revealing group similarities and differences in optimal sexuality.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 45(3), 250-258.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031776
Kornrich, S., Brines, J. & Leupp, K. (2013). Egalitarianism, housework, and sexual frequency in
marriage. American Sociological Review, 78(1), 26-50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0003122412472340
Laumann, E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T. & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of
sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
30&
Matthews, A.K., Tartaro, J., & Hughes, T.L. (2003). A comparative study of lesbian and
heterosexual women in committed relationships. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7(1), 101-115.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J155v07n01_07
McCarthy, B. & Wald, L.M. (2013). A review of “The Normal Bar: The secrets of happy couples
and what they reveal about creating a new normal in your relationship.” Journal of Sex &
Marital Therapy, 39(6), 562-563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2013.803864
Meltzer, A.L. & McNulty, J.K. (2010). Body image and marital satisfaction: Evidence for the
mediating role of sexual frequency and sexual satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology,
24(2), 156-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019063
Miller, S.A. & Byers, E.S. (2004). Actual and desired duration of foreplay and intercourse:
Discordance and misperceptions within heterosexual couples. Journal of Sex Research,
41(3), 301-309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490409552237
Muise, A. (2012, April 6). The ins and outs of sexual frequency. [Blog post]. Retrieved from:
http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2012/4/6/the-ins-and-outs-of-sexual-
frequency.html
Nagao, K., Tai, T., Saigo, R., Kimura, M., Ozaki, Y., Tanaka, N., Kobayashi, H., & Nakajima,
K. (2014). Gaps between actual and desired sex life: Web survey of 5665 Japanese women.
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 40(1), 33-43.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2012.691947
Nakajima, K., Nagao, K., Tai, T., Kobayashi, H., Hara, H., Miura, K., & Ishii, N. (2010).
Duration of sexual intercourse related to satisfaction: Survey of Japanese married couples.
Reproductive Medical Biology, 9(3), 139-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12522-010-0049-
2
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
31&
Northrup, C., Schwartz, P., & Witte, J. (2012). The Normal Bar: The surprising secrets of happy
couples and what they reveal about creating a new normal in your relationship. New
York: Harmony House.
Nichols, M. (2004). Lesbian sexuality/female sexuality: Rethinking ‘lesbian bed death.’ Sexual
and Relationship Therapy, 19(4), 363-371.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681990412331298036
O’Mara, M. (2012). The correlation of sexual frequency and relationship satisfaction among
lesbians. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). The American Academy of Clinical
Sexologists.
Peplau, L.A., Fingerhut, A., & Beals, K.P. (2004). Sexuality in the relationships of lesbians and
gay men. In J. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality in close
relationships (pp. 350-369). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Powers, C.R. (2012). Female orgasms from intercourse: Importance, partner characteristics and
health. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from UNT Digital Library.
(ark:/67531/metadc149654) http://digital.librar.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc149654
Quade, D. (1967). Rank analysis of covariance. Journal of American Statistical Association, 62,
1187-2000.
Rempel, J.K. & Baumgartner, B. (2003). The relationship between attitudes towards
menstruation and sexual attitudes, desires, and behavior in women. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 32(2), 155-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022404609700
Richters, J., de Visser, R., Rissel, C., & Smith, A. (2006). Sexual practices at last heterosexual
encounter and occurrence of orgasm in a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 43(3),
217-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552320
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
32&
Rosen, R., Brown, C., Heiman, J., Leiblum, S., Meston, C., Shabsigh, R., Ferguson, D., &
D’Agostino, R. Jr. (2000). The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): A multidimeinsional
self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. Journal of Sex and
Marital Therapy, 26(2), 191-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/009252300278597
Rosen, R.C., Riley, A., Wagner, G., Osterloh, I.H., Kirkpatrick, J., & Mishra, A. (1997). The
international index of erectile function (IIEF): A multidimensional scale for assessment of
erectile dysfunction. Urology, 49(6), 822-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0090-
4295(97)00238-0
Russell, V.M. & McNulty, J.K. (2011). Frequent sex protects intimates from the negative
implications of their neuroticism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(2), 220-
227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550610387162
Schwartz, P. & Young, L. (2009). Sexual satisfaction in committed relationships. Sexuality
Research & Social Policy, 6(1), 1-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/srsp.2009.6.1.1
Scott-Sheldon, L.A.J., Kalichman, S.C. & Carey, M.P. (2010). Assessment of sexual behavior. In
Andrew Steptoe (Eds), Handbook of Behavioral Medicine (pp. 59-72). New York:
Springer.
Smith, A.M., Patrick, K., Heywood, W., Pitts, M.K., Richters, J., Shelly, J.M., Simpson, J.K. &
Ryall, R. (2012). Sexual practices and the duration of last heterosexual encounter: Findings
from the Australian longitudinal study of health and relationships. Journal of Sex
Research, 49(5), 487-494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.598247
Weiss, P. & Brody, S. (2009). Women’s partnered orgasm consistency is associated with greater
duration of penile-vaginal intercourse but not of foreplay. The Journal of Sexual Medicine,
6(1), 135-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.01041.x
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
33&
Williams, C. (2012). American culture’s shifting perspective on female homosexuality from the
1970’s to the present. McNair Scholars Research Journal, 4(1), 1-14.
http://commons.emich.edu/mcnair/vol14/iss1/10
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
34&
Table 1
Sociodemographic, Descriptive and Relationship Characteristics of the Full Sample
Full
Sample
Male
Same-Sex
Female
Same-Sex
Male
Mixed-Sex
Female
Mixed-Sex
n(%)
Relationship
Type
211
(25.7%)
215
(26.2%)
106
(12.9%)
290
(35.3%)
Sexual Identity
Bisexual
44
(5.4%)
5
(2.37%)
18
(8.37%)
0
21
(7.24%)
Gay
214
(26.4%)
203
(96.21%)
9
(4.19%)
2
(1.89%)
0
Lesbian
178
(21.9%)
0
176
(81.86%)
0
2
(.69%)
Straight
355
(43.2%)
0
3
(1.40%)
101
(95.28%)
251
(86.55%
Unlabeled
20
(2.5%)
0
5
(2.33%)
2
(1.89%)
13
(4.48%)
Kinsey
0
252
(30.7%)
1
(.48%)
2
(.93%)
88
(83.02%)
161
(55.52%)
1
105
(12.8%)
0
2
(.93%)
12
(11.32%)
91
(31.38%)
2
35
(4.3%)
0
8
(3.72%)
4
(3.77%)
23
(7.93%)
3
23
(2.8%)
0
12
(5.58%)
0
11
(3.79%)
4
17
(2.1%)
3
(1.42%)
14
(6.51%)
0
0
5
96
(11.7%)
38
(18.01%)
56
(26.05%)
1
(.94%)
1
(.34%)
6
291
(35.4%)
169
(80.09%)
121
(56.28%)
0
1
(.34%)
Decline Response 3 0 0 1 2
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
35&
(0.4%)
(.94%)
(.69%)
Education
High School or Less
101
(12.29%)
21
(9.95%)
32
(14.88%)
12
(11.32%)
36
(12.41%)
Some College/University
276
(33.58%)
70
(33.18%)
78
(36.28%)
30
(28.30%)
98
(33.79%)
College Degree
119
(14.48%)
41
(19.43%)
28
(13.02%)
19
(17.92%)
31
(10.69%)
Undergraduate Degree
184
(22.38%)
40
(58.96%)
43
(20%)
24
(22.64%)
77
(26.55%)
Graduate Degree
142
(17.27%)
39
(18.48%)
34
(15.81%)
11
(10.38%)
48
(16.55%)
Personal
Income
< $20,000
312
(38%)
45
(21.32%)
90
(41.86%)
37
(34.90%)
140
(48.28%)
$20,000-35,999
161
(19.6%)
52
(24.64%)
33
(15.35%)
26
(24.53%)
50
(17.24%)
$36,000-55,999
138
(16.8%)
46
(21.8%)
38
(17.67%)
15
(14.15%)
39
(13.45%)
$56,000+
125
(15.2%)
50
(23.70%)
33
(15.35%)
17
(16.04%)
25
(8.62%)
Decline Response
86
(10.5%)
16
(7.58%)
14
(6.51%)
5
(4.72%)
25
(8.62%)
Relationship
Stage
Casually Dating
26
(3.2%)
6
(2.8%)
6
(2.8%)
4
(3.8%)
10
(3.4%)
Seriously Dating
137
(16.7%)
33
(15.64%)
32
(14.90%)
18
(17%)
54
(18.62%)
Considering Marriage
292
(35.5%)
61
(28.90%)
71
(33.02%)
40
(37.74%)
120
(41.38%)
Engaged
90
(10.9%)
17
(8.06%)
27
(12.56%)
17
(16.04%)
29
(10%)
Married/Common Law/
Civil Union/Domestic
Partnership
274
(33.3%)
92
(43.6%)
78
(32.28%)
27
(25.47%)
77
(26.55%)
Running&head:&DURATION&OF&SEXUAL&ENCOUNTERS& &
36&
Table 2
Group Differences in Age & Relationship Characteristics
Full Sample
Male
Same-Sex
Female
Same-Sex
Male
Mixed-Sex
Female
Mixed-Sex
p
M (SD)
Age
30.05
(10.63)
36.09*
(12.68)
31.70*
(11.40)
27.95*
(6.50)
25.23*
(6.26)
.000
Relationship Length in Months
52.87
(62.30)
82.80*
(94.83)
43.35
(51.88)
43.71
(56.63)
39.95
(48.74)
.000
Relationship Satisfaction
6.00
(0.90)
6.05
(.85)
6.03
(.84)
6.00
(.93)
5.96
(.96)
.660
Standardized Mean Sexual
Satisfaction
-.0023
(0.92)
-.10
(.92)
.04
(.95)
.09
(.81)
.01
(.94)
.279
Overall Sexual Satisfaction (past 4
weeks)
3.80
(1.22)
3.67
(1.22)
3.79
(1.24)
3.93
(1.09)
3.85
(1.22)
.227
Satisfaction with Sexual
Relationship
3.12
(.93)
3.04
(.95)
3.20
(.91)
3.17
(.79)
3.11
(.96)
.349
* Significantly different from all comparison groups.
!"##$#%&'()*+&,-!./012&13&456-.7&5281-2/5!4& &
9:&
Table 3
Correlations between Duration, Frequency and Relationship/Sexual Satisfaction.
Spearman’s Rho Correlations (df)
Relationship
Satisfaction
Sexual
Satisfaction
Length of Last
Sexual
Encounter
Sex More than
2x/ Week
Weeks with
No Sex At All
Relationship
Satisfaction
1
.455**
(809)
.110**
(816)
.157**
(795)
-.246**
(799)
Sexual Satisfaction
1
.208**
(813)
.494**
(798)
-.493**
(801)
Length of Last
Sexual Encounter
1
.113**
(798)
-.102**
(802)
Sex More than
2x/Week
1
-.687**
(795)
Weeks with No
Sex At All
1
** p < .01 (N)
!"##$#%&'()*+&,-!./012&13&456-.7&5281-2/5!4& &
9;&
Table 4
Predictors of Sexual Satisfaction
Sexual Satisfactiona
Model 2
Variable
Model 1 B
SEB
B
95% CI
Constant
.145
.171
-.430
[-.766, -.094]
Age
.001
.003
-.002
[-.009, .004]
Relationship Length
-.003*
.001
-.001
[-.002, .001]
Length of Last Sexual Encounter
.020
.088*
[.049, .127]
Sex At Least 2x/Week
.033
.241*
[.176, .306]
Weeks w/ No Sex At All
.033
-.198*
[-.263, -.133]
R2
.04
.34
ΔR2
.29
ΔF
102.59*
Note. N = 706. CI = confidence interval. SEB = standard error of the coefficient. B =
unstandardized regression coefficient.
a Sexual satisfaction measured using the mean of the two standardized satisfaction
questions
* p < .001.
&
& &
!"##$#%&'()*+&,-!./012&13&456-.7&5281-2/5!4& &
9<&
Table 5
Predictors of Relationship Satisfaction
Relationship Satisfaction
Model 2
Variable
Model 1
B
SEB
B
95% CI
Constant
6.043
.193
6.432
[6.053, 6.812]
Age
.000
.004
.004
[-.011, .004]
Relationship Length
.000
.001
.001
[.000, .002]
Length of Last Sexual Encounter
.023
.063**
[.018, .107]
Sex At Least 2x/Week
.038
-.080*
[-.154, -.005]
Weeks w/ No Sex At All
.038
-.215***
[-.289, -.141]
R2
.00
.064
ΔR2
.064
ΔF
15.840***
Note. N = 704. CI = confidence interval. SEB = standard error of the coefficient. B =
unstandardized regression coefficient.
* p <.05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
!"##$#%&'()*+&,-!./012&13&456-.7&5281-2/5!4& &
=>&
Figure 1. Frequency of engaging in sex more than two times per week by relationship type.
Figure 2. Frequency of experiencing weeks with no sex at all by relationship type.
>&
?&
@>&
@?&
A>&
A?&
9>&
9?&
=>&
2(B(C& D)C*EF&5B(C& 1GG)H$I#)EEF& -H")EEF& .EJ)FH&
%"Withiin"Group"
Do"You"Have"Sex"More"Than"Two"Times"Per"Week?""
3(K)E(&4)K(L4(M&
3(K)E(&N$M(*L4(M&
N)E(&4)K(L4(MA&
N)E(&N$M(*L4(MA&
>&
@>&
A>&
9>&
=>&
?>&
O>&
2(B(C& D)C*EF&5B(C& 1GG)H$I#)EEF& -H")EEF& .EJ)FH&
%"Within"Group"
Are"There"Weeks"In"Which"You"Do"Not"Have"Sex"At"All?""
3(K)E(&4)K(L4(M&
3(K)E(&N$M(*L4(M&
N)E(&4)K(L4(MA&
N)E(&N$M(*L4(MA&
!"##$#%&'()*+&,-!./012&13&456-.7&5281-2/5!4& &
=@&
Figure 3. Duration of Last Sexual Encounter by Relationship Type
Figure 4. Duration of Average Sexual Encounter by Relationship Type
>&
?&
@>&
@?&
A>&
A?&
9>&
9?&
=>&
=?&
P@>&N$#& @>L@?&N$#& @?L9>&N$#& 9>L=?&N$#& =?LO>&N$#& @LA&DI"CH& AQ&DI"CH&
%"Within"Group"
Duration"of"Last"Sexual"Encounter"
3(K)E(&4)K(L4(M&
3(K)E(&N$M(*L4(M&
N)E(&4)K(L4(M&
N)E(&N$M(*L4(M&
>&
?&
@>&
@?&
A>&
A?&
9>&
9?&
=>&
=?&
P&@>&N$#& @>L@?&K$#& @?L9>&K$#& 9>L=?&K$#& =?LO>&K$#& @LA&DI"CH& AQ&DI"CH&
%"Within"Group"
Duration"of"Average"Sexual"Encounter""
3(K)E(&4)K(L4(M&
3(K)E(&N$M(*L4(M&
N)E(&4)K(L4(M&
N)E(&N$M(*L4(M&
