ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

Using a mixed-methods study, we provided the first systematic documentation and exploration of erotic talk. In Study 1 (N = 95), participants provided 569 erotic talk statements in an anonymous online survey, which we classified, using a modified thematic analysis, as being representative of eight themes. In Study 2 (N = 238), we quantified individual differences in these themes, subjected them to factor analysis, and examined the nomological network surrounding them with measures of relationship and sexual satisfaction, sociosexuality, and personality. The eight initial categories represented two higher order factors, which we call individualist talk and mutualistic talk. These factors were orthogonal in factor analysis and distinct in their nomological network. While the majority of people reported using erotic talk, we found few sex differences in its use.
ORIGINAL PAPER
An Examination of the Nature of Erotic Talk
Peter K. Jonason
1
Gabrielle L. Betteridge
1
Ian I. Kneebone
2
Received: 12 February 2015 / Revised: 12 June 2015 / Accepted: 18 June 2015
ÓSpringer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract Using a mixed-methods study, we provided the
first systematic documentation and exploration of erotic talk.
In Study 1 (N=95), participants provided 569 erotic talk
statements in an anonymous online survey, which we classified,
using a modified thematic analysis, as being representative of
eight themes. In Study 2 (N=238), we quantified individual
differences in these themes, subjected them to factor analysis,
and examined the nomological network surrounding them with
measures of relationship and sexual satisfaction, sociosexuality,
and personality. The eight initial categories represented two
higher order factors, which we call individualist talk and mutu-
alistic talk. These factors were orthogonal in factor analysis and
distinct in their nomological network. While the majority of people
reported using erotic talk, we found few sex differences in its use.
Keywords Communication Sexuality Satisfaction
Erotolalia Sociosexuality Profanity
Introduction
In order to get insight into human sexual behaviors and desires,
researchers often focus on behaviors people have committed,
are interested/willing to commit, and attitudes about behaviors
(Joyal, Cossette, & Lapierre, 2015; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, &
Gebhard, 1953; Schmitt, 2005). One aspect of human sexuality
appears to have been neglected; erotic talk (aka sex talk, pillow
talk, or dirty talk) or communication in the context of sexual
encounters. So long as one accepts the premise that what people
say (i.e., vocalizations or utterances) are meaningful observa-
tional units of analysis (Hamilton & Hunter, 1985;Potter&
Wetherall, 1987), one could better understand sexual behav-
iors, fantasies, and motivations by examining what people say
in the context of sexual episodes.
While previously deemed unimportant (Levin, 2006), a
recent, large-scale sex survey suggests 62 % of respondents
enjoyed talking during sex (Redhotpie, 2014). In addition,
erotic talk appears to play a role in relationship and sexual
satisfaction (Babin, 2013; Brogan, Fiore, & Wrench, 2009;
Byers, 2001; Crawford, Kippax, & Waldby, 1994; Sanchez,
Phelan, Moss-Racusin, & Good, 2012) and facilitates orgasm
(Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010; Roberts, Kippax, Waldby, &
Crawford, 1995). Interestingly, vocalizations (i.e., nonverbal
erotic talk) in nonhuman primates facilitate orgasm and pair-
bonding in various nonhuman primates as well (Engelhardt,
Fischer, Neumann, Pfeifer, & Heistermann, 2012; Hamilton
& Arrowood, 1978; Pfefferle, Brauch, Heistermann, Hodges,
& Fischer, 2008). So long as ones accepts evolutionary theory
and humans being part of the primate order, what is‘‘said’’during
sex might be biologically meaningful. Despite these points,
erotic talk has received limited attention because it may contain
verbal and sexual taboos (e.g., cursing; Jay, 1992,1999,2009;
MacDougald, 1961; Murnen, 2000; Patrick, 1901; Sanders,
1969). Taken together, this suggests erotic talk is worthy of more
detailed study. In this study, we provide the first (that we know
of) documentation of erotic talk themes along with how the
individual differences of participant’s sex, sociosexuality, and
relationship satisfaction account for the use and enjoyment of
erotic talk.
&Peter K. Jonason
p.jonason@uws.edu.au
1
School of Social Sciences and Psychology, University of
Western Sydney, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia
2
Graduate School of Health, Discipline of Clinical Psychology,
University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway,
NSW 2007, Australia
123
Arch Sex Behav
DOI 10.1007/s10508-015-0585-2
Content of Men and Women’s Erotic Talk
Different goals or sexual motivations may underlie different
themes in erotic talk. When erotic talk is geared towards rela-
tionship building, we expect it to involve voluntary and invol-
untary (reflexive) feedback that is verbal and nonverbal, expres-
sions of intimacy, and instructional statements (Brogan et al.,
2009;Byers,2011;Kinseyetal.,1953;Levin,2006). All of these
(and maybe more) have the implicit, if not explicit, goal of trying
to improve the quality of sexual activity for both members of the
relationship. As both people benefit from an improved rela-
tionship,such themes might be considered mutualistic themes.
However, people are not always overtly motivated by rela-
tionship enhancement or group needs (Jonason, Strosser, Kroll,
Duineveld, & Baruffi, 2015) and, may, instead, be more concerned
with their own sexual arousal/enhancement.
1
In this aspect of
erotic talk, individuals may adopt a more aggressive posture,
tone, and content. To get some insight into this form of erotic talk,
we might look to sexual deviance (Williams, Cooper, Howell,
Yuille, & Paulhus, 2009). Sexually deviant behaviors tend to place
the sexual arousal of one partner as paramount and the fact that the
partner also gets aroused (maybe) is seconda ry (e.g., sexual
asphyxiation). Sexual bondage and other domination manifesta-
tions of sexual behavior suggest some people are aroused by being
dominant or submissive, leading us to expect such themes in erotic
talk as well. This desire for power may even go a step further in the
form of sexual ownership in erotic talk (e.g.,‘‘whose pussy is this?’).
Alternatively, vocalizing one’s sexual fantasies may better facili-
tate arousal and climax by creating a self-arousing stimuli, and
therefore, we expect this to be another theme in erotic talk.
Thusfar,wehavefocusedonthemesweexpectinbothsexes.
However, there might be some reason to expect the sexes to differ
in some ways. While the sexes are more alike than they are dif-
ferent, sexual behavior and attitudes remain one context in which
they continue to differ in meaningful degrees (Oliver & Hyde,
1993; Petersen & Hyde, 2010). Women may be more motivated
to bond and commune than men are (Buhrke & Fuqua, 1987;
Jonason, Webster, & Lindsey, 2008) and, therefore, may be more
interested in erotic talk centered around intimacy and bonding.
Indeed, women may be more partner-focus in the bedroom
(Bensman, 2011), which may explain why they sometimes fake
orgasm (Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010; Roberts et al., 1995).
Men, in contrast, may have a greater need for power and control
than women do, leading them to be more interested in messages
that make them feel that way.
Structure of Erotic Talk
While we expect some clear themes to emerge in erotic talk, we
expect they will likely reduce down to two fundamental, higher
order constructs that have been well researched in personality
psychology. The distinction between selfish/individualistic traits
and prosocial/mutualistic (i.e., agency and communion) traits is
particularly important in personality psychology (Allport, 1924;
Trapnell & Paulhus, 2012). We expect individual differences
in talk designedto improve the quality of the relationship (e.g.,
feedback)to fall under a higher order distinction of mutualistic
talk. In contrast, we expect erotic talk of a more overtly sexual
nature (e.g., sexual ownership) to fall under a higher order dis-
tinction of individualistic talk.
One way to understand the nature of different aspects (at
different levels) of erotic talk is to assess its nomological net-
work. A nomological network is composed of the correlations
that surround a given construct in theoretical space. Primarily,
we are interestedin three aspects of sexualitythat may allow us
to distinguish the types and themes oferotic talk.Sociosexual-
ity is a personality trait that taps attitudes, behaviors, and desires
related to promiscuity or a casual sex approach to mating (Simpson
& Gangestad, 1991). Given the overtly sexual nature of this trait,
we expectit to correlate morewith individualistic talk than mu-
tualistic talk. That is, we expect those who are sociosexually
liberal to engage in more individualistic talk than mutualistic
talk. In contrast, relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfac-
tion may be facilitated by open communication and expres-
sions of affection (Byers, 2001; Montesi, Fauber, Gordon, &
Heimberg, 2011; Pascoal, Narciso, & Pereira, 2014). As such,
we expect it to be correlated with the use of mutualistic talk but
not individualistic talk. As each higher order dimension of talk
comes from different psychological space, we expect what it is
related to differ, further revealing the relative orthogonality of
these types of erotic talk.
Secondarily, we examine, in a descriptive fashion, how the
Big Five personality traits
2
may allow us to distinguish these
two major dimensions of erotic talk. We expect two general
patterns. First, extraversion describes a person’s tendency to
engage with the social world. As much of erotic talk requires
communication, we expect extraversion to provide some dis-
criminatory value in understanding aspects of erotic talk. Sec-
ond, we have expectations that agreeableness will also be valuable.
Agreeableness is an individual difference that describes how
much people try to get along with others and are generally nice.
As this trait has major implications for relationship stability
(Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997; Buss & Shackelford, 1997),
we expect it to also be associated with mutualistic talk. And last, if
erotic talk is a manifestation of some psychological dysfunction,
it should be correlated with neuroticism. As we do not feel it is an
1
Indeed, as individuals can have sex outside of a formal relationship,
sex talk might not occur within a relationship and, therefore, there is little
reason to try to build relationship satisfaction and commitment.
2
Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, Openness, and Conscienti-
ousness.
Arch Sex Behav
123
expression of dysfunction, we expect no correlations with neu-
roticism.
In an act-nomination/frequency study (Buss & Craik, 1983;
Jonason & Buss, 2012), we document major themes in erotic talk
and try to understand the factor structure of erotic talk. We adopt
such a method to minimize experimenter bias. We collect
statements from one sample and then quantify individual dif-
ferences in those statements in another sample. We provide an
exploration and documentation of individual differences in
erotic talk in order to get a clearer picture of people’s sexual
motives and behavior.
Study 1: The Content of Erotic Talk
Study 1 was an act-nomination study (Buss & Craik, 1983)
designed to identify the types of statements that individuals say
duringsexualactivity, and grouptheseinto qualitativelysimilar
messages. This method is useful for basing research on content
provided by participants, not researchers. The process was gui-
ded by the question: What is the content of people’s erotic talk,
and are there recurrent themes across the statements that can
be categorized? To do so, we collected open-ended responses
from a group of participants and then subjected them to a sorting
procedure to detect major themes.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Ninety-five participants (52 % female), aged between 18 and
69 years old (M=40.70, SD =12.22) were recruited via
social media in a snowball fashion. As per the act-nomination
methodology, participants were asked, in open question format,
to provide a list of the things that they and their partner say during
sex including, but not limited to, for excitement and expressions
of emotions. In order to collect as many erotic statements as
possible to better represent a wide range of speech, participants
were free to provide statements men and women use. Partici-
pants who indicated that they did not use erotic talk (13 %) were
asked to supply statements that they knew or believed other men
andwomensayduringsex.
3
Only participants from unique IP
addresses were included. Ethics approval was granted by the
University of Western Sydney.
Results
A total of 569 erotic statements were collected, with content
ranging from sweet talk (e.g., ‘Darling’’) to what would be con-
sidered in a broader context to be offensive (e.g.,‘‘Shut up bitch’).
4
Men and women did not differ in the number of statements they
provided. Typographical errors were corrected and a modified
thematic analysis was conducted. Two research assistants, who
were blind to the hypotheses and expected themes, independe-
ntly analyzed the statements, and discrepancies among re-
searchers were discussed. This procedure mirrored prior analysis
with act-nomination data (Jonason & Buss, 2012) and acts to
reduce some of the noise present in act-nomination data. It does
not, however, strictly follow thematic analysis procedures of
creating coding schemes.
This process produced a total of eight message themes. The
eight themes were (1) sexual dominanc e (e.g.,‘‘Take it!,’’‘‘Who’s
my fucktoy?,’‘Are you a slaveboy?’); (2) sexual submission
(e.g.,‘‘Fuck me good,’’‘‘Let me be your dirty slut,’’‘‘Do with it as
you please’); (3) instructive statements (e.g.,‘Go faster/harder,’’
‘Bend over,’ ‘‘Put your cock in me’’); (4) positive feedback/
reinforcement (e.g.,‘‘You are so good at that,’‘‘Ilove it when you
slow down,’ ‘‘You taste so good’); (5) intimacy/emotional
bonding (e.g.,‘‘I love you,’‘Darling,’’‘‘You’re beautiful’); (6)
sexual ownership (e.g.,‘‘Whose pussy is this?,’’‘‘You’re mine
now,’’‘‘Are you my girl?’’); (7) speaking fantasies (e.g., ‘I’m
imagining people are watching us fuck,’’‘‘Tell me what you
would do with that guy’’); and (8) reflexive calls (e.g., ‘Yes/
yeah!,’ ‘Fuck!,’ ‘Oh God!’’). Categories sometimes over-
lapped,for example, messagesof sexual dominanceand sexual
submission were sometimes also instructive, and if so, were
coded underboth. However,sexual dominance wasonly coded
if the statement clearly contained a degrading-the-other or
controlling message (e.g.,‘‘You’ll come when I tell you to come’’),
and sexual submission only coded if a statement contained a self-
degrading or yielding message (e.g., ‘Please use me to please
you’). However, by examining the themes in Study 2, we reduce
this problem.
The open question format proved valuable in providing cur-
rent and relevant data on the content of erotic talk that avoided
any preordained vocabulary or categories being imposed, as with
many previous studies. In stark contrast to previous findings that
contend there is a high usage of euphemisms (e.g., making love)
and formal terminology (e.g., vagina, penis)usedtoreferto
sexual terms (e.g., Sanders & Robinson, 1979;Walsh&
Leonard,1974; Wells, 1990), only one statement contained a
euphemism (i.e., ‘‘I love the way you make love’’), and one
statementcontained a formal term (i.e.,‘‘I love how smooth the
head of yourpenis is’). Slang was by farthe most preferred gra-
mmar for sexual anatomy (e.g., cock, dick, pussy, ass/arse,tits,
and balls) and for sexual intercourse (mostly, fuck). There was
3
While allowing people to report on statements that others say and not
them, we may have introduced some learned content from pornographic
movies, but as we (1) will not examine particular statements and (2) feel
men and women can still accurately report statements offered by menand
women even from pornographic films, we feel this is a minor concern.
Moreover, as most pornographic consumption in the age of Redtube (and
other website devoted to pornographic clips) revolves around limited
scripts and budgets, this seems like a quite minor concern.
4
The full list of statements is available from the first author, upon request.
Arch Sex Behav
123
one exceptionto this rule—the word cuntwas only used by two
participants, both male. This is not surprising given that the
word is considered the most taboo of all sexual terms, partic-
ularly by women (Braun & Kitzinger, 2001;Murnen,2000;
Sanders & Robinson, 1979;Wells,1990) and we relied on an
American sample where such a term may be less common than
in countries that speak the Queen’s English (e.g., Australia).
Study 2: Individual Differences in Erotic Talk
Now that we have a list of erotic statements that are relatively
devoid of researcher bias, we need to quantify individual dif-
ferences in the use of erotic talk using the act-frequency method
(Buss & Craik, 1983). In Study 2, we provide participants with
quantitative questions asking about their use/enjoyment of each
of the eight themes. We then subject these responses to factor
analysis and an assessment of the nomological network sur-
roundingthe individual differences in the use oferotic talk. We
again assess sex differences because those analyses in Study 1
were more tests about the number of statements each sex offered
than any test of differences in erotic talk usage in men and women.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Two hundred and thirty-eight participants (52 % female)
aged between 19 and 68 years old (M=35.43, SD =10.09),
5
from the USA,completed the anonymous online surveyposted
on Mechanical Turk in exchange for US$1. Ninety-two percent
of participants indicated that they use erotic talk, 72 % were in a
committed relationship (18 % single),
6
88 % were heterosexual,
4 % homosexual, and 7 % bisexual.
7
Only participants from
unique IP addresses were included. Ethics approval was granted
by the University of Western Sydney.
Measures
To measure individual differences in erotic talk, participants
were asked to rate their use of each of the eight categories of
erotic talk from Study 1 (i.e., sexual dominance, sexual submis-
sion, instructive statements, positive feedback/reinforcement,
intimacy/emotional bonding, sexual ownership, speaking fan-
tasies, and reflexive calls). Sample items of each were presented
to avoid any confusion or objections to the terms used to rep-
resent each category. Threemeasures of usage were taken, which
were, how much the individual used such statements (1 =never;
5=all the time), how exciting it was to hear, and to say during sex
(1 =not at all;5=extremely, for both dimensions). These three
question types were averaged and found to have good-to-ex-
cellent internal consistency (see Table 2),andsotoeliminate
redundancy and reduce Type I error inflation, the 24 (eight themes
by three question types) items were reduced to eight measures of
erotic talk usage (use/pleasure) by averaging responses across
three items for each theme.
8
Participants were asked to respond to
these questions in relation to their current or most recent
relationship.
Sexual satisfaction was assessed using the New Sexual
Satisfaction Scale-Short (S
ˇtulhofer & Bus
ˇko, 2010), a 7-item
measure with a conceptual framework derived from the sex
therapy literature. The items were averaged to create a single
index of sexual satisfaction (a=.94). Participants were asked
to respond to these questions in relation to the last relationship
where they used erotic talk.
Regardless of relationship status at the time of surveying,
each participant completed the 7-item Relationship Assess-
ment Scale (Hendrick, 1988). The items were averaged to
create a single index of relationshipsatisfaction (a=.91). Par-
ticipants were asked to respondto these questions with respect
to the last relationship where they used erotic talk.
To measure individual differences in sociosexuality, par-
ticipants completed the Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inven-
tory (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008), a 9-item measure of willingness
to engage in uncommitted sexual relationships. The items were
averaged to create a single index of sociosexual orientation
(a=.89).
9
Personality was measured using a 20-item short form of
the 50-item International Personality Item Pool-Five-Factor
Model measure, the Mini-IPIP (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, &
Lucas, 2006). The scales contain four items per Big Five trait
(i.e., extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuro-
ticism, and intellect/imagination). Items were averaged to create
indexes of each dimension, allof which returned good internal
consistency (as=.74 to .89).
5
Age was correlated with less use of the submissive themed erotic talk
(r(218) =-.14, p\.05).
6
The results were generally robust to this distinction. Indeed, the only
effects suggested that those who were in committed relationships used
mutualistic talk more than single participant (t(218) =2.24, p\.05)
which was driven by differences in intimate talk (t(218) =2.15, p\.05)
and reflexive talk (t(218) =1.97, p\.05). As these are exploratory
analyses and weak effects, we urge caution in their over-interpretation.
7
Because of the small size of the latter two groups, and initial analyses
showing no effect for sexual orientation, this variable was omitted from
further analyses.
8
Data on the original three dimensions are available from the first
author upon request.
9
An examination of the three dimensions of this scale proved reasonably
fruitless. As our interest was to investigate sociosexuality in general as
opposed to any one aspect of it, we feel this is the best approach theoretically
and psychometrically.
Arch Sex Behav
123
Results
Factor Structure of Erotic Talk
We sought to understand the factor structure of erotic talk. To
begin, we correlated individual differences on all eight themes
(Table 1). There was sufficient overlap and the sample size was
adequate (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin =.80) to run factor analyses.
Using Principal Components Analysis (for data reduction pur-
poses) with an Oblimin rotation, thereweretwofactors(Table2)
accounting for 56 % of the variance. Factor 1 contained items
related to more self-focused sexual activity, and when averaged
had good internal consistency (a=.75). Factor 2 contained items
that represented shared experience and communicating pleasure
to one’s sexual partner, and when averaged had adequate internal
consistency (a=.68). These two factorsbecame new study va-
riables, individualistic talk and mutualistic talk, respectively. In-
dividualistic talk and mutualistic talk were correlated (r(223) =
.47, p\.001).I n a Confirmatory Factor Analysis, we verified that
a two-dimensional model (Fig. 1) fit the data moderately well
(v
2
(19) =46.33, p\.01, v
2
/df =2.44, CFI =.94, RMSEA =.08
(90 % CI .05–.11), p-closeness\.06) and better (Dv
2
=37.78,
p\.01) than a one-dimensional model (v
2
(20) =84.11, p\.01,
v
2
/df =4.21, CFI =.85, RMSEA =.12 (90 % CI .09–.14), p-
closeness\.01).
Sex Differences in Erotic Talk
Next, we examined the role of participant’s sex
10
in the use of
these two dimensions. A 2 92 repeated measures ANOVA,
with sex of the participant as the between-subjects factor and the
types of erotic talk as the within-subjects factor, showed that
men and women did not differ on their preference for the two
types of erotic talk. Both sexes had a higher (F(1, 218) =334.66,
p\.001, g
p
2
=.61) use/enjoyment of mutualistic talk (M=3.33,
SD =0.65) than individualistic talk (M=2.45, SD =0.76). We
did not conduct similar analyses for the eight themes or the
particular questions we used to assess individual differences in
erotic talk as they made little theoretical sense. Instead, we turn
our attention to sex differences.
Generally, we found few sex differences. The sexes differed
in only one theme intimacy/emotional bonding (t(217) =-2.77,
p\.05, Cohen’s d=-0.38), where women reported more use/
enjoyment than men did. It appears that for women, sex is an
opportunity to strengthen the dyadic relationship, but for men, it
has a different purpose. To offset concerns that examining fre-
quency, pleasure in hearing, and pleasure in saying independe-
ntly may be essential, we examined sex differences in the par-
ticular items (despite an inflated Type I error). Women were
more likely to say submissive messages (t(217) =-3.28, p\.01,
d=-0.45) and to enjoy hearing intimate messages (t(217) =
-4.04, p\.01, d=-0.55) than men were, and men reported
more excitement when hearing messages of submission than
women did (t(217) =4.33, p\.01, d=0.59).
Nomological Network of Erotic Talk
To follow the factor analysis, we sought to examine the nomo-
logical network surrounding each of these two dimensions
and the eight themes (Table 3). Individualistic talk was cor-
related with sociosexuality, sexual satisfaction, and extraversion.
Mutualistic talk was associated with relationship satisfaction,
sexual satisfaction, extraversion, and agreeableness. The cor-
relations between the higher order themes and sexual satisfac-
tion differed (Steiger’s z=1.90, p\.05), suggesting it really is
mutualistic talk that is associated with sexual satisfaction, not so
much individualistic talk. Use/enjoyment of the sexual domi-
nance theme was associated with extraversion and sociosexu-
ality. Use/enjoyment of the sexual submission theme was
associated with extraversion and sexual satisfaction. Use/
enjoyment of the intimacy theme was associated with relation-
ship and sexual satisfaction along with extraversion and agree-
ableness. Use/enjoyment of the positive feedback theme was
associated with more sexual satisfaction and extraversion and
agreeableness. Use/enjoyment of the instructive statements was
associated with agreeableness. And last, use/enjoyment of the
reflexive calls theme was associated with openness and agree-
ableness. While some apparent moderation was present, when
we adjusted alpha for Type I error inflation, none passed that
threshold (p\.001).
Next, we correlated the three question types with indivi-
dual difference measures. Generalized frequency of use of
any kind of erotic talk was correlated with sexual satisfaction
(r(223) =.21, p\.01), extraversion (r(220) =.19, p\.01),
and agreeableness (r(220) =.18, p\.01). Generalized enjoy-
ment of saying any kind of erotic talk was correlated with sexual
satisfaction (r(223) =.28, p\.01), extraversion (r(220) =.21,
p\.01), and agreeableness (r(220) =.18, p\.01). Generalized
enjoyment of hearing erotic talk had no correlates. Again, an
adjusted alpha (p\.001) revealed no moderation by sex of the
participant.
Last, we correlated the individual themes within each ques-
tion type and the individual differences measures (Table 4).
However, given the large number of correlations, we only will
mention the larger ones and obvious patterns. We include this to
provide the fullest account of individual differences in erotic talk
as possible. Being sociosexually unrestricted was correlated with
the frequency of use and the excitement in saying and hearing
messages of sexual dominance. Agreeableness was associated
with nearly every case of use and enjoyment of the aspects of
mutualistic talk. The frequency of use, enjoyment in hearing, and
enjoyment in saying intimacy messages was negatively corre-
lated with being sociosexually unrestricted but positively correlated
10
The interaction of sex and use/nonuse of erotic talk was not tested
given the unequal cell sizes.
Arch Sex Behav
123
with both relationship and sexual satisfaction. Again, there was
little evidence for moderation by participant’s sex (p\.001).
11
General Discussion
We have provided an advance in the measurement and under-
standing of a topic that appears important in relationship and
sexual satisfaction in humans and nonhuman primates alike
(Byers, 2001; Pfefferle et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1995). We
have argued that much can be revealed about the nature of
people based on what they say (Potter & Wetherall, 1987), and
thus, studying erotic talk may complement what is already
known about their sexual behavior (Jonason, 2013;Kinsey
et al., 1953). We examined individual differences and themes
in erotic talk using classic test theory and the act-nomination/
act-frequency paradigm.
There appear to be two primary dimensions that resemble the
agency-communion distinction found in personality psychology
(Allport, 1924; Trapnell & Paulhus, 2012). The dimensions were
tested in two ways. First, in factor analysis, it is clear there are
two, somewhat correlated dimensions we called mutualistic and
individualistic talk, both of which are composed of four themes of
erotic talk. Second, in assessing the nomological network sur-
rounding aspects of erotic talk, each was correlated with different
outcomes. Sociosexuality was associated with the individualistic
theme through sexual dominance, but it was negatively corre-
lated with the intimacy theme. Extraversion was associated with
the individualistic theme through messages of sexual dominance
and sexual submission. Extraversion was associated with mutu-
alistic talk through intimacy and positive feedback. Agreeable-
ness was only associated with mutualistic talk and its themes. This
suggests each dimension has its own unique correlates to provide
sufficient cause to consider them distinct here and in the future.
In terms of the content of erotic talk, each may reveal unique
aspects of sexual motivations that have been highlighted in
recent work on sexual fantasies (Joyal et al.,2015). Erotic talk,
Table 1 Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alphas, and zero-order correlations among erotic talk themes
aMean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Speaking fantasies .91 1.80 (0.99)
2. Sexual dominance .97 2.81 (0.90) .32**
3. Sexual ownership .84 2.30 (1.07) .39** .44**
4. Sexual submission .75 2.90 (0.98) .35** .63** .49**
5. Intimacy/bonding .82 3.10 (1.01) .03 .15* .25** .22**
6. Positive feedback .78 3.23 (0.83) .21** .30** .26** .36** .40**
7. Instructive statements .76 3.25 (0.91) .21** .38** .24** .31** .45** .49**
8. Reflexive calls .76 3.70 (0.86) .20* .41** .20* .35** .17* .42** .36**
*p\.05, ** p\.01
Table 2 Component loadings for the factor structure (oblimin rotation) of erotic talk themes
Erotic talk themes Components
12h
2
1. Speaking fantasies .79 .55
2. Sexual dominance .74 .64
3. Sexual ownership .69 .50
4. Sexual submission .68 .65
5. Intimacy/bonding .80 .57
6. Positive feedback .76 .63
7. Instructive statements .63 .55
8. Reflexive calls .48 .40
Eigen values 3.32 1.17
% Variance 41.46 14.66
Component loadings less than .30 have been suppressed
11
Specific details regarding moderation tests can beobtained by contacting
the first author.
Arch Sex Behav
123
like sexual motivations, may have mutualistic and individual-
istic shades. The former appear to be other-focused motivations
that may improve the quality of sex and the relationship. For
instance, message of bonding and intimacy may serve to further
cement the commitment individuals have towards one another
(Byers, 2001; Montesi et al., 2011; Pascoal et al., 2014). The
latter may place the enjoyment of the individual at the forefront.
For instance, verbalizing ones sexual fantasies may facilitate the
speaker’s pleasure and any arousal created in one’s partner is
incidental. Nevertheless, while this divide is consistent with
work in personality psychology (Allport, 1924;Trapnell&Paul-
hus, 2012), it is possible that all of these serve functions across
relationships. There is likely no clear and clean division despite
the compelling indications from the factor analyses, as suggested
by the association between the two higher order factors. What
may be more reasonable is that each theme plays a role in
χ2(19) = 46.33, p < .01, χ2/df = 2.44, NFI = .90, CFI = .94,
RMSEA = .08 (90%CI .05, .11), p-closeness < .06
Individualistic Talk
Dominance
Submissiveness
Ownership
Fantasies
Instructional
Feedback
Intimacy/Bonding
Reflexive
Mutualistic Talk
.76
.81
.57
.47
.68
.68
.44
.58
.32
Fig. 1 Confirmatory factor
analysis of the structure of erotic
talk
Table 3 Nomological network correlations (r) of various aspects of erotic talk
SOI RS SS O C E A N
1. Speaking fantasies .11 -.05 .06 .13 -.04 .06 -.01 .00
2. Sexual dominance .24** .05 .12 .08 .04 .18** .06 -.08
3. Sexual ownership .03 .00 .12 .01 -.08 .11 -.01 -.03
4. Sexual submission .12 -.01 .13* .07 -.04 .15* .05 .03
5. Intimacy/bonding -.27 .23** .27** -.05 .11 .15* .18** -.06
6. Positive feedback -.06 .10 .24** .07 .06 .17** .21** -.03
7. Instructive statements -.06 .01 .13 .09 .04 .03 .18** -.05
8. Reflexive calls .07 .03 .11 .13* -.02 .11 .20** .03
9. Individualistic talk .16* .01 .14* .09 -.04 .16* .03 -.03
10. Mutualistic talk -.12 .17* .27** .08 .07 .16* .27** -.04
Italicized items reflect higher order dimensions of erotic talk
SOI sociosexuality, RS relationship satisfaction, SS sexual satisfaction, Oopenness, Cconscientiousness, Eextraversion, Aagreeableness, N
neuroticism
*p\.05, ** p\.01
Arch Sex Behav
123
different relationships to various degrees. Indeed, what might
be worth pursuing in the future is an examination of the erotic
talk in long-term and short-term relationship contexts (Buss
& Schmitt, 1993; Trivers, 1972).
There was scant evidence for sex differences in erotic talk.
It is possible that men and women have learned to say what the
other sex likes and derives pleasure from pleasing their partners.
As we did not account for source of pleasure or pornography
consumption, we cannot say much about this. Individuals might
just be parroting what they hear men and women say in pornog-
raphy. However, given that our results were largely consistent
when we examined use and enjoyment saying, and hearing, this
seems like a minor concern. This problem will have been reduced
by looking for themes as we did in Study 1 and following them
up with Study 2. In addition, the nature of our questions was
about what men and women say in general. If individuals were
heavy consumers of pornography, they should still be able to
differentiate between what men and women say in the videos
they have seen.
Nevertheless, the lack of sex differences is not all that
surprising in that the sexes are more alike than they are dif-
ferent (Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Petersen & Hyde, 2010). We did
find some sex differences as predicted. Women preferred
messages of intimacy, whereas men preferred messages of power.
Such results are consistent with social script (Lawrance, Taylor, &
Byers, 1996; Simon & Gagnon, 1986; Wiederman, 2005)and
Table 4 Correlations between the frequency of use, enjoyment in saying, and enjoyment in hearing erotic talk and individual difference measure
SOI RS SS O C E A N
Sexual dominance
Frequency of use .19** .09 .04 .11 .02 .17** .04 -.06
Excitement in saying .18** .17* .07 .11 .01 .16* .06 -.08
Excitement in hearing .24** .04 .00 .03 .05 .10 .04 -.06
Sexual submission
Frequency of use .12 .12 -.01 .07 -.06 .10 -.00 .07
Excitement in saying .02 .12 -.04 .04 -.01 .15* .18** .09
Excitement in hearing .17** .07 .02 .10 -.06 .09 -.06 -.06
Sexual ownership
Frequency of use .02 .13 .01 .06 -.08 .12 .03 -.06
Excitement in saying -.00 .20** .10 .02 -.09 .09 -.05 -.08
Excitement in hearing .07 .00 -.10 -.05 -.07 .07 -.00 .05
Sexual fantasies
Frequency of use .13 .04 -.04 .13 -.04 .06 .04 .03
Excitement in saying .06 .08 .00 .11 -.05 .05 -.04 -.03
Excitement in hearing .14* .03 -.02 .13 -.04 .05 -.03 .03
Instructional
Frequency of use -.01 .11 .05 .13* -.05 .05 .16* .01
Excitement in saying -.07 .11 .11 .10 .05 .08 .24** -.07
Excitement in hearing -.05 .08 .08 .01 .08 -.05 .05 -.06
Feedback
Frequency of use .00 .25** .08 .12 .08 .14* .25** -.03
Excitement in saying -.12 .25** .14* .06 .07 .20** .15* -.10
Excitement in hearing -.03 .11 .03 .02 .01 .10 .14* .05
Intimacy/bonding
Frequency of use -.15* .21** .24** -.05 .05 .10 .16* -.15*
Excitement in saying -.25** .29** .23** -.04 .13* .17* .16* -.06
Excitement in hearing -.27** .19** .12 -.03 .09 .10 .14* .06
Reflexive
Frequency of use .22** .03 -.01 .12 -.09 .10 .17* .05
Excitement in saying -.05 .18** .09 .04 .02 .13* .22** -.00
Excitement in hearing .03 .05 -.01 .20** -.00 .02 .10 .03
SOI sociosexuality, RS relationship satisfaction, SS sexual satisfaction, Oopenness, Cconscientiousness, Eextraversion, Aagreeableness, N
neuroticism
*p\.05, ** p\.01
Arch Sex Behav
123
evolutionary models (Buss, Shackelford, Choe, Buunk, & Dijk-
stra, 2000). Unfortunately, our data do not say anything about
which model is better in accounting for individual differences in
erotic talk; it was not designed to do so. It is likely that both
provide complimentary and overlapping information about
erotic talk. The evolutionary approach creates a parsimonious
model with the work on sexual vocalizations in nonhuman
primates (e.g., Hamilton & Arrowood, 1978) and offers a priori
reasons to expect sex differences and even particular content. A
sociocultural/social script model takes those evolved tendencies
and preferences and reinforces or punishes them, providing
context-specific variance in the content of erotic talk and potential
sex differences in the use and enjoyment of erotic talk.
Limitations, Future Directions, and Conclusions
Although this study was a major advance in the documenta-
tion and measurement of individual differences in erotic talk,
it was, nonetheless, characterized by a number of limitations.
First, although our samples were meaningfully older than the
standard college student samples of sex and relationship research,
our samples could still be described as W.E.I.R.D. (i.e., Western,
educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic; Henrich, Heine, &
Norenzayan, 2010). This might be exacerbated in online samples
although we feel the anonymity and sample size provided by such
methods are important tools in sex research. Moreover, the reli-
ance on an older sample provides for a greater and more varied
sexual history than college students are likely to have; something
that may be essential in understanding erotic talk. It is likely that
young, relatively inexperienced undergrads may not have the
sexual range or confidence to use erotic talk as those who are a bit
older. Nevertheless, the possibility remains that erotic talk could
differ in content and structure from society to society; however,
how and why those differences would exist is unclear to us.
Second, the degrees of freedom varied by about 20 in places
because of some confusion in participants regarding how to
complete the measures of erotic talk. Nevertheless, as our anal-
yses relied on maximum likelihood estimation, there were few
missing data points, and there is every expectation that they were
missing at random, we feel confident in our conclusions. This
problem, however, reinforces the utility of large samples when
examining sensitive and provocative topics (see Jonason, Li, &
Cason, 2009). By the law of averages alone, having a large sample
will offset and minimize problems with missing data. Never-
theless, why people refused to answer a given question is an
important, albeit tangential psychometric question for sex
researchers, but beyond the scope of this project.
Third, as we transitioned from higher order analyses to more
specific item analyses, we did reveal some asymmetries sug-
gesting that while the factor analyses are both theoretically and
psychometrically justifiable, there maybe nuancesfuture research
should attend to as we have (e.g., the distinction between saying
and hearing). For instance, more detail may be offered if future
research were to disentangle some contextual effects. Erotic talk
content might differ when compared in one-night standsas com-
pared to committed relationships. Two possibilities exist. The
range of erotic talk content might be greater in long-term rela-
tionships than short-term relationships as people have devel-
oped enough intimacy to explore their sexuality (Jonason, Li,
&Richardson,2010). Alternatively, individualistic talk might
be more used in the short-term than long-term domain. As
short-term relationships have sexual gratification at their core
(Jonason, 2013), such erotic talk might be used to enhance par-
ticipant’s sexual pleasure.
Fourth, in some cases we may have had an inflated alpha
but we (1) feel this is tolerable given the novelty of our study
and (2) that we conceptually did omnibus tests in our higher
order analyses. Subsequent analyses acted as de facto simple
effects tests. Doing so allowed us to squeeze every ounce of
information possible out of the data. There are surely many
more questions to follow about this understudied topic. We
hope to have provided both depth and breadth of insight into
erotic talk for future research to follow up on.
Fifth, as Study 2 relied on responses from Study 1, Study 2
could be criticized as limited in that we must trust the statements
provided by that sample. To offset this, we did not rely on the
actual responses for Study 2, but, instead, assessed individual
differences in the themes allowing us to, ad hoc, ignore apparent
noise created by such qualitative designs (Jonason & Buss,
2012). Future research might compliment this approach by doing
a content analysis of what men and women say in pornographic
films and daily diary studies that ask people to report on what
they said in their last sexual episode to triangulate on more
precision.
Collectively, our studies provide exciting new material to
drive further research. We have, in effect, created a multiva-
riate, multilevel, multicontent measure of individual differ-
ences in erotic talk. This measure will provide insights into
erotic talk from various levels of analysis, and we encourage
future researchers to treat erotic talk as we have. Future work
may reveal more sex differences by examining context speci-
ficity in what people in say in short-term and long-term rela-
tionships (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Alternatively, future research
might examine how sexual orientation and participants’ sex
interact to predict preferred erotic talk themes.
In conclusion, it makes the most sense to us to think of erotic
talk as being composed of themes that individuals orient towards
differently while retaining strong theoretical currents running
underneath. Indeed, we have shown there are two main types of
erotic talk that are composed of eight different themes that have a
reasonably orthogonal structure and nomological network. For
the first time, the science of sex research can claim to have fully
documented what people say in the bedroom.
Arch Sex Behav
123
Acknowledgments Part of the results reported represented the Mas-
ter’s thesis in Clinical Psychology for the second author. We thank Adiba
Icho, Katie Ireland, Laura Mansfield, and Milica Medojevic for their
work as Research Assistants.
References
Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Babin, E. A. (2013). An examination of predictors of nonverbal and
verbal communication of pleasure during sex and sexual satisfac-
tion. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 270–292.
Bensman, L. (2011). Two people just make it better: The psychological
differences between partnered orgasms and solitary orgasms. Doctoral
Abstracts Internat ional: Section B: The Science s and Engineering,
72(11-B), 7107.
Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality
and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and satisfac-
tion. Journal of Personality, 65, 107–136.
Braun, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2001). ‘‘Snatch,’ ‘hole,’’ or ‘honey-pot’’?
Semantic categories and the problem on nonspecificity in female
genital slang. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 146–158.
Brogan, S. M., Fiore, A., & Wrench, J. S. (2009). Understanding the
psychometric properties of the sexual communication style scale.
Human Communication, 12, 421–445.
Buhrke, R. A., & Fuqua, D. R. (1987). Sex differences in same- and
cross-sex supportive relationships. Sex Roles, 17, 339–352.
Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to
personality. Psychological Review, 90, 105–126.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An
evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review,
100, 204–232.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Susceptibility to infidelity in
the first year of marriage. Journal of Research in Personality, 31,
193–221.
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Choe, J. A. E., Buunk, B. P., & Dijkstra,
P. (2000). Distress about mating rivals. Personal Relationships, 7,
235–243.
Byers, E. S. (2001). Evidence for the importance of relationship satisfaction
for women’s sexual functioning. Women & Therapy, 24, 23–26.
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, 20–28.
Crawford, J., Kippax, S., & Waldby, C. (1994). Women’s sex talk and
men’s sex talk: Different worlds. Feminism & Psychology, 4, 571–
587.
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The
mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five
factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192–203.
Engelhardt, A., Fischer, J., Neumann, C., Pfeifer, J. B., & Heistermann,
M. (2012). Information content of female copulation calls in wild
long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis). Behavioral Ecology
and Sociobiology, 66, 121–134.
Hamilton, W. J., & Arrowood, P. C. (1978). Copulatory vocalizations of
Chacma baboons (Papio ursinus), gibbons (Hylobates hoolock),
and humans. Science, 200, 1405–1409.
Hamilton, M. A., & Hunter, J. E. (1985). Analyzing utterances as the
observational unit. Human Communication Research, 12, 285–294.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93–98.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people
in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.
Jay, T. (1992). Cursing in America: A psycholinguistic study of dirty
language in the courts, in the movies, in the schoolyards and on the
streets. Herndon, VA: John Benjamins Publishing.
Jay, T. (1999). Why we curse: A neuro-psycho-social theory of speech.
Herndon, VA: John Benjamins Publishing.
Jay, T. (2009). The utility and ubiquity of taboo words. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 4, 153–161.
Jonason, P. K. (2013). Four functions for four relationships: Consensus
definitions in university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42,
1407–1414.
Jonason, P. K., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Avoiding entangling commit-
ments: Tactics for implementing a short-term mating strategy.
Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 606–610.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Cason, M. J. (2009). The ‘booty call’’: A
compromise between men and women’s ideal mating strategies.
Journal of Sex Research, 46, 460–470.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Richardson, J. (2010). Positioning the booty-call
relationship on the spectrum of relationships: Sexual but more
emotional than one-night stands. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 486–495.
Jonason, P. K., Strosser, G. L., Kroll, C. H., Duineveld, J. J., & Baruffi, S.
A. (2015). Valuing myself over others: The Dark Triad traits and
moral and social values. Personality and Individual Differences,
81, 102–106.
Jonason, P. K., Webster, G. D., & Lindsey, A. E. (2008). Solutions to the
problem of diminished social interaction. Evolutionary Psychol-
ogy, 6, 637–651.
Joyal, C. C., Cossette, A., & Lapierre, V. (2015). What exactly is an
unusual sexual fantasy? Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12, 328–340.
Kinsey,A.C.,Pomeroy,W.B.,Martin,C.E.,&Gebhard,P.H.(1953).
Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.
Lawrance, K. A., Taylor, D., & Byers, E. S. (1996). Differences in men’s
and women’s global, sexual, and ideal-sexual expressiveness and
instrumentality. Sex Roles, 34, 337–357.
Levin, R. J. (2006). Vocalised sounds and human sex. Sexual &
Relationship Therapy, 21, 99–107.
MacDougald, D. (1961). Language and sex. In A. Ellis & A. Abarbanel
(Eds.), The encyclopedia of sexual behavior (pp. 585–598).
London: Hawthorn Books.
Montesi, J. L., Fauber, R. L., Gordon, E. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (2011).
The specific importance of communicating about sex to couples’
sexual and overall relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 28, 591–609.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Shippee, S. K. (2010). Men’s and women’s reports of
pretending orgasm. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 552–567.
Murnen, S. K. (2000). Gender and the use of sexually degrading
language. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 319–327.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 21–38.
Pascoal, P. M., Narciso, I. D. S. B., & Pereira, N. M. (2014). What is
sexual satisfaction? Thematic analysis of lay people’s definitions.
Journal of Sex Research, 51, 22–30.
Patrick, G. T. W. (1901). The psychology of profanity. Psychological
Review, 8, 113–127.
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual
orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its
effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135.
Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research
on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological
Bulletin, 136, 21–38.
Pfefferle, D., Brauch, K., Heistermann, M., Hodges, J. K., & Fischer, J.
(2008). Female Barbary macaque (Macaca sylvanus) copulation
calls do not reveal the fertile phase but influence mating outcome.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275, 571–
578.
Arch Sex Behav
123
Potter, J., & Wetherall, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology:
Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.
Redhotpie. (2014). The great Australian sex census. Retrieved from http://
www.sexcensus.com.au/Home
Roberts, C., Kippax, S., Waldby, C., & Crawford, J. (1995). Faking it:
The story of ‘‘Ohh!’ Women’s Studies International Forum, 18,
523–532.
Sanchez, D. T., Phelan, J. E., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Good, J. J. (2012).
The gender role motivation model of women’s sexually submissive
behavior and satisfaction in heterosexual couples. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 528–539.
Sanders, M. S. (1969). Viewpoints: What is the significance of crude
language during sexual relations? Medical Aspects of HumanSexuality,
3, 8–14.
Sanders, J. S., & Robinson, W. L. (1979). Talking and not talking about
sex: Male and female vocabularies. Journal of Communication, 29,
22–30.
Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A
48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–311.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and
change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 97–120.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in
sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.
S
ˇtulhofer, A., & Bus
ˇko, V. (2010). The New Sexual Satisfaction Scale
and its short form. In T. D. Fisher, C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, & S.
L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 530–
532). New York: Routledge.
Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2012). Agentic and communal values: Their
scope and measurement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 39–52.
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell
(Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago:
Aldine-Atherton.
Walsh, R. H., & Leonard, W. M. (1974). Us age of terms for sexual intercourse
by men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 3, 373–376.
Wells, J. W. (1990). The sexual vocabularies of heterosexual and
homosexual males and females for communicating erotically with
a sexual partner. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19, 139–147.
Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The
Family Journal, 13, 496–502.
Williams, K. M., Cooper, B. S., Howell, T. M., Yuille, J. C., & Paulhus,
D. L. (2009). Inferring sexually deviant behavior from correspond-
ing fantasies. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 198–222.
Arch Sex Behav
123
... For example, disclosing more positive thoughts and feelings during sexual activity has been associated with an increased likelihood of orgasm (Denes, Crowley, & Bennett, 2020). Jonason et al. (2016) also found a positive association between mutualistic erotic talk and sexual satisfaction, but did not find the same association for individualistic erotic talk, suggesting that talk focused on both individuals' experiences may be more satisfying than talk focused solely on one's self. In terms of nonverbal communication, Babin (2013) found that nonverbal communication during sexual activity, but not verbal communication, was positively associated with sexual satisfaction (Babin, 2013). ...
... More specifically, research on trait affection, sexual self-esteem, and sexual assertiveness suggest that these three personality constructs are likely important predictors of individuals' sexual communication behavior. Through the lens of AET, communication during sexual activity may be viewed as a way to express affection to one's partner, as individuals often express sentiments during sexual activity geared toward increasing the pleasurable aspect of sexual activity (i.e., mutualistic erotic talk; Jonason et al., 2016). Individuals who are higher in trait affection are more likely to express affection and more comfortable expressing affection (Floyd, 2002); as such, it is likely that individuals who are higher in trait affection are more likely to communicate with their partner during sexual activity. ...
... A key goal of the Communication During Sexual Activity model is to better understand communication during sexual activity and its associations with sexual and relational outcomes, such as sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction. Communication during sexual activity was positively associated with sexual satisfaction, which is consistent with Jonason et al. (2016) finding that mutualistic erotic talk during sex is a predictor of sexual satisfaction and Denes, Crowley, and Bennett (2020) finding that more positive communication during sex was associated with a greater likelihood of orgasm. Replicating the association between communication during sexual activity and sexual satisfaction helps to confirm these previous findings, while also providing predictive validity for the new measure of communication during sexual activity utilized in the present study. ...
Article
Preliminary evidence suggests that communication during and after sexual activity is linked to positive sexual and relational assessments, but the process of communication during sexual activity (i.e., predictors and outcomes of such behavior) has yet to be explicated. As such, the current study puts forth the Communication During Sexual Activity model, which posits that one’s propensity for affectionate communication, sexual self-esteem, and sexual assertiveness predict verbal communication during sexual activity, which in turn is associated with sexual and relationship satisfaction. Within a sample of emerging adults, structural equation modeling revealed that sexual self-esteem and trait affection were positively associated with communication during sexual activity. However, sexual assertiveness did not significantly predict communication during sexual activity. Communication during sexual activity was also positively associated with sexual satisfaction, and indirectly associated with relationship satisfaction through sexual satisfaction. The implications of the findings for future sexual communication research and interventions are addressed.
... Most prior research has focused on sexual communication that occurs outside of sexual activity, with limited attention to sexual talk-i.e., verbal sexual communication that occurs exclusively during sexual activity and that is specific to the sexual activity itself (Jonason et al., 2016;Merwin & Rosen, 2020). Yet, sexual talk is common and thought to influence how satisfied each member is with that sexual encounter or with their relationship in general (e.g., Jonason et al., 2016;Merwin & Rosen, 2020), making it an important and distinct component of sexual scripts. ...
... Most prior research has focused on sexual communication that occurs outside of sexual activity, with limited attention to sexual talk-i.e., verbal sexual communication that occurs exclusively during sexual activity and that is specific to the sexual activity itself (Jonason et al., 2016;Merwin & Rosen, 2020). Yet, sexual talk is common and thought to influence how satisfied each member is with that sexual encounter or with their relationship in general (e.g., Jonason et al., 2016;Merwin & Rosen, 2020), making it an important and distinct component of sexual scripts. Based on sexual script theory, sexual talk can be viewed as a sexual behavior that is likely to vary depending on gender and sexual orientation, or dyad type. ...
... Considering the importance of sexual communication for couples' sexual and relationship well-being, it is striking that so few studies have examined sexual talk-a type of sexual communication that occurs exclusively during sexual activity and that is specific to the sexual activity itself (Babin, 2012;Blunt-Vinti et al., 2019;Brogan et al., 2009;Jonason et al., 2016;Merwin & Rosen, 2020). In a cross-sectional study with individuals, Blunt-Vinti et al. (2019) found that-consistent with sexual script theory-women reported higher levels of nonverbal communication during sex than men, but-in contrast to what might be expected based on sexual script theory-found no gender/sex differences for verbal communication during sex. ...
Article
Full-text available
Sexual talk is a type of verbal communication that occurs exclusively during sexual activity and that is specific to the sexual activity itself. Previous research has identified two types of sexual talk: individualistic (i.e., self-focused) and mutualistic (i.e., sharing/partner-focused), which have generally been linked to greater sexual and relationship well-being. Whether sexual talk use varies by gender/sex (i.e., men, women, gender/sex diverse individuals; GSD) or dyad type (i.e., same- vs. mixed-gender/sex) has not been examined. Given initial evidence that the types of sexual talk may contribute differently to sexual and relationship well-being, it is important to identify factors (e.g., gender/sex) that may be associated with the amount of sexual talk used. We examined differences by gender/sex and dyad type in the average sexual talk use among long-term couples (N = 229; 69 same-gender/sex) using retrospective cross-sectional dyadic data. We also examined these differences in the same sample (N = 217) using a 35-day dyadic daily diary study. Retrospectively, but not daily, women reported using more mutualistic talk than men, especially when partnered with a woman. There were no significant gender/sex or dyad type differences in use of individualistic talk retrospectively or daily. Exploratory analyses with the GSD couples suggested that there may be gender/sex and dyad type differences retrospectively and daily, for individualistic and not mutualistic talk; however, these analyses must be interpreted with caution due to the small subsample size of GSD couples.
... Thus, the PSDM would benefit from expanding to consider communication behavior that occurs during sexual activity as a precursor to the post sex disclosure process. Building upon Jonason, Betteridge, and Kneebone's (2016) definition of erotic talk as "communication in the context of sexual encounters" (p. 21), communication during sexual activity is provided as an umbrella term, defined as the communication that occurs while individuals are engaging in a sexual act, which may or may not include communication that occurs during foreplay leading to the sexual activity. ...
... Such communication includes erotic talk, as well as positive relational disclosures (PRDs) during sexual activity, as detailed below. Though the PSDM focuses specifically on selfdisclosure, we expand the model to fully assess communication as it occurs during the sexual episode, which can include statements that are not only self-disclosive and mutualistic, but also self-focused and individualistic (e.g., instructive statements, messages of sexual dominance or submission, reflexive calls, etc.; Jonason et al., 2016) and their association with relational and sexual outcomes. ...
... Research on communication in sexual contexts has also explored two forms of erotic talk: mutualistic erotic talk and individualistic erotic talk (Jonason et al., 2016). Mutualistic erotic talk is prosocial and "designed to improve the quality of the relationship," and includes statements related to intimacy/bonding, positive feedback/reinforcement, reflexive calls, and giving instructions (Jonason et al., 2016, p. 22). ...
Article
The present study investigated young adults' self‐reported communication during sexual activity and its link to sexual and relational outcomes. The associations between two forms of communication during sexual activity (i.e., positive relational disclosures and erotic talk) and orgasm and relationship satisfaction were explored. Additionally, the study tested whether orgasm mediated the association between communication during sexual activity and relationship satisfaction. Three‐hundred and nineteen young adults (237 women, 82 men) ranging in age from 18–32 years (M = 19) completed a survey within 2 hours of a recent sexual episode addressing their communication during sexual activity. Results revealed that positive relational disclosures, but not erotic talk, predicted the likelihood of orgasm, controlling for participants' biological sex. More specifically, individuals who disclosed more positive feelings during sexual activity were more likely to orgasm. Additionally, the more individuals disclosed positive thoughts and feelings for their partners during sexual activity or the more they engaged in mutualistic erotic talk that included intimacy and bonding, the higher their reported relationship satisfaction after sexual activity. The implications of these findings for research on sexual satisfaction, relational health, and the post sex disclosures model are discussed.
... This trust-building sharing of one's history as well as a general view on life continues with the beginning of a relationship, excluding others (Giddens 1992). Then, communication often becomes sexually charged and emotionally saturated (Jonason et al. 2016), increasing the degree of privacy and separation from the public sphere. It should be noted that communication at the beginning of a relationship is interwoven with all other media of experience, reflecting on them, thus, reinforcing their effects. ...
Article
Full-text available
In this paper, I will explore love as a universe of meaning constituted at the crossroads of cultural patterns and actors’ biographical experiences. Universes of meaning provide a structure of cognitive pre-selections. While the social in general is composed of a multitude of universes of meaning, they belong to the public. Romantic relationships are private and enable privacy. I will (1) propose a definition of love and a framework that serves to ensure its theoretical validity. I will then (2) analytically deconstruct the unity of communication, interaction, eroticism, and emotionality as love’s different media of experience and explore their self-referential functionality.
... For example, Denes and colleagues (2020) have investigated during-sex positive relational disclosurethat is, disclosing positive aspects of the relationship, which includes declarations of love and affectionas a possible predictor of orgasm and relationship satisfaction. In a mixed-method study, Jonason et al. (2016) found that individuals engage in what they refer to as "mutualistic erotic talk" during sex, which involves expressing statements that relate to intimacy and bonding, positive feedback and instructions, and expressions of pleasure. ...
Article
Full-text available
Research generally supports the idea that sexual communication is beneficial to partners in committed relationships. However, much existing sexual communication research has a verbal communication bias and has examined sexual communication in non-sexual contexts, neglecting a wide variability of other forms of communication that occur during sex. Thus, from a sexual scripts theoretical framework, the purpose of the present study was to: (1) explore how individuals communicate needs, desires, pleasure, and displeasure to their partners during sex; (2) investigate perceptions of during-sex sexual communication’s purposes; and (3) document individuals’ perceived barriers and facilitators to during-sex sexual communication. Data from 27 interviews conducted among individuals in committed different-gender relationships (15 women, 11 men, 1 queer person; 21–68 years old), were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants reported communicating using a combination of verbal, vocal, and bodily forms of communication. Most participants indicated that communicating during sex increased sexual pleasure and emotional intimacy and was useful for clarifying doubts and reducing insecurities. Many individuals nonetheless reported avoiding verbal communication during sex to preserve the mood, protect a partner’s feelings, and avoid experiencing negative emotions and a partner’s judgment. Sexual communication was also described as a skill that is developed over time and through the development of sexual subjectivity. Implications for sexual script theory and future sexual communication research are discussed.
... The factors of the YSEX?-HSF showed a more complex pattern of associations with the Big Five personality factors than that seen in the original U.S. study (Meston & Buss, 2007). The present study revealed a positive relationship between Extraversion and sexual motivation, which is consistent with the findings of several previous studies (e.g., Gangestad & Simpson, 2000;Jonason et al., 2016;Schmitt, 2004). Neuroticism and sexual motivation also showed a positive association (among women), which corroborates findings of previous studies (Allen & Walter, 2018;Pinkerton & Abramson, 1996;Trobst et al., 2002). ...
Article
Full-text available
Using the same methodology as Meston and Buss (2007), three studies were conducted on a Hungarian sample (total N = 4913) which corroborate previous findings on the universal diversity of sexual motivation. Study 1 ( N = 2728; 1069 women and 1659 men) identified 197 reasons for having sex based on participants’ free responses. In Study 2 ( N = 1161; 820 women and 341 men), participants indicated the extent to which each of the 197 reasons had led them to have sexual intercourse. Factor analyses yielded three factors and 24 subfactors. This differed from the original YSEX? four-factor questionnaire. In Study 3 ( N = 1024; 578 women and 446 men), a reliable and valid 73-item short form version of the YSEX? questionnaire was developed in a Hungarian sample (YSEX?-HSF). In addition to similarities and differences in the factor structure, we found important links between reasons for having sex and age, gender, personality, and mating strategy. For example, number of reasons for having sex tended be higher in younger compared to older participants. Men exceeded women on having sex for novelty-seeking and infidelity opportunities, whereas women exceeded men on having sex for relationship commitment and mate retention. Extraversion and neuroticism were linked with reasons for having sex, and those who pursued a short-term mating strategy reported having sex for a larger variety of reasons.
Book
Full-text available
This study, situated within the field of Language and Sexuality Studies, investigates the characterisation of fictional gay men in 21st-century British drama. The research is based on a corpus of 61 plays, staged between 2000 and 2020, which collectively feature 187 gay male characters. The study employs methodological triangulation to explore the corpus from three distinct perspectives, moving from broad trends to more detailed analyses. The first section offers an overview of 20th and 21st-century British drama featuring gay characters, identifying general trends in the portrayal of homosexuality in contemporary British theatre. The second section delves into the 187 fictional gay characters, classifying them according to both sociolinguistic variables (such as age, social class, and linguistic variety) and variables specific to Language and Sexuality Studies (including levels of openness about their sexuality and their distinctive use of “gayspeak”). The final section takes an eclectic approach, providing a multifaceted analysis of the “gayspeak” observed in the corpus. This is done through both manual analysis and a corpus-assisted approach using #Lancsbox software. The primary goal of this section is to evaluate whether the features of “gayspeak” identified in earlier studies persist in the contemporary plays under examination.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose of Review The purpose of this review is to summarize the current knowledge on sexual communication among sexual and gender/sex diverse (SGD) groups. Complementing an existing review of the literature on safer-sex communication with SGD individuals (Parrillo & Brown, 2021), we focus on sexual communication related to promoting sexual satisfaction. Recent Findings The two-pathways model of sexual communication has yet to be generalized with SGD samples. Research comparing SGD with non-SGD individuals has varied in whether there are differences between groups. There is some evidence of differences between gender diverse and non-gender diverse groups in sexual communication. Emerging evidence of the unique strengths and challenges of sexual communication among gender/sex diverse groups highlights the importance of deepening gender/sex diverse-specific sexual communications research. Summary A lack of literature regarding sexual communication in SGD groups is reported. Results on whether there are differences between and/or within groups are mixed and confounded by inconsistent methodologies for measurement of demographic and sexual communication variables. Clearly, further research is needed to increase our understanding of sexual communication in SGD groups. As such, we provide recommendations for future research, specifically regarding inclusive demographic and analytical considerations.
Article
Full-text available
This meta-analysis surveyed 177 usable sources that reported data on gender differences on 21 different measures of sexual attitudes and behaviors. The largest gender difference was in incidence of masturbation: Men had the greater incidence (d = .96). There was also a large gender difference in attitudes toward casual sex: Males had considerably more permissive attitudes (d = .81). There were no gender differences in attitudes toward homosexuality or in sexual satisfaction. Most other gender differences were in the small-to-moderate range. Gender differences narrowed from the 1960s to the 1980s for many variables. Chodorow's neoanalytic theory, sociobiology, social learning theory, social role theory, and script theory are discussed in relation to these findings.
Article
Full-text available
In samples from America and Germany (N = 1353), we examined how the Dark Triad traits related to different value systems as measured by Moral Foundations and Social Values. Psychopathy was linked to diminished concerns for all Moral Foundations, Machiavellianism was linked to a moral flexibility, and narcissism was linked to a socially desirable form of morality. Machiavellianism and psychopathy scores were associated with a devaluing of collective interests, whereas narcissism was associated with a valuing of individual interests through the value of Self-Enhancement. Individual differences in a variety of values mediated part of the sex differences in the Dark Triad traits. We contend that what makes the Dark Triad traits unique and interesting is that they share a unique complex of values that might run counter to societal expectations for selflessness.
Article
Full-text available
IntroductionAlthough several theories and treatment plans use unusual sexual fantasies (SF) as a way to identify deviancy, they seldom describe how the fantasies referred to were determined to be unusual.AimThe main goal of this study was to determine which SF are rare, unusual, common, or typical from a statistical point of view among a relatively large sample of adults recruited from the general population. A secondary goal was to provide a statistical comparison of the nature and intensity of sexual fantasies for men and women. This study also aims at demonstrating with both quantitative and qualitative analyses that certain fantasies often considered to be unusual are common.Methods An Internet survey was conducted with 1,516 adults (799 ♀; 717 ♂) who ranked 55 different SF and wrote their own favorite SF. Each SF was rated as statistically rare (2.3% or less), unusual (15.9% or less), common (more than 50%), or typical (more than 84.1% of the sample).Main Outcome MeasuresAn extended version of the Wilson's Sex Fantasy Questionnaire with an open question.ResultsOnly two sexual fantasies were found to be rare for women or men, while nine others were unusual. Thirty sexual fantasies were common for one or both genders, and only five were typical. These results were confirmed with qualitative analyses. Submission and domination themes were not only common for both men and women, but they were also significantly related to each other. Moreover, the presence of a single submissive fantasy was a significant predictor of overall scores for all SF in both genders.Conclusion Care should be taken before labeling an SF as unusual, let alone deviant. It suggested that the focus should be on the effect of a sexual fantasy rather than its content. Joyal CC, Cossette A, and Lapierre V. What exactly is an unusual sexual fantasy? J Sex Med **;**:**–**.
Article
The review examines the possible involvements that vocalisations, linguistic and non-linguistic, have in human sex.