Personal Relationships,2 (1995), 55-65. Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright 0 1995 Cambridge University Press. 1350-4126/95$7.50 + .10

Gender differences and similarities in sex

and love

SUSAN S. HENDRICK AND CLYDE HENDRICK

Texas Tech University

Abstract
One’s attitudes toward love and sexuality are influenced by many factors, including gender. To explore the role
of gender (and other variables) in participants’ attitudinal orientations toward love and sexuality, data were
collected in the United States at three time points (1988,1992,1993), resulting in a total sample of 1,090
participants. Data analyses showed gender differences in both sexual attitudes and love. Men were more
sexually permissive than women (consistent with previous research), although women and men similarly
endorsed other aspects of sexuality, including sex as an emotional experience. Men and women differed on
several relationship variables (e.g., women were more oriented to friendship-based love, and men to
game-playing love). However, correlational analyses showed many similar patterns for women and men. These
findings underline the need to consider both gender differences and similarities in sex and love within intimate
relationships.

Researchers have long puzzled over the Gender-Based Perspectives

role of sexuality in close, romantic relation-
Gender provides one lens through which
ships. Beyond the simple but compelling
we view much of our world, including love
biological drive toward reproduction, one
and sexuality. Gender is intertwined with
way to consider sexuality is within the con-
love and sexuality in complex ways and has
text of a wider romantic relationship be-
been examined empirically in terms of gen-
tween two sexual participants (Sprecher &
der differences in love and sexual attitudes
McKinney, 1993). And such romantic rela-
and behavior, differential sexual expecta-
tionship contexts differ in some ways for
tions based on gender (e.g., the “double
women and men.
standard”), and theoretical perspectives
One characteristic of the existing social
such as sociobiology or social learning
science literature on romantic relationships
theories which have sought to explain gen-
is the presence of gender differences in a
der differences in sexuality and love.
number of areas of both sexuality and love.
The purpose of the current research was to
build on previous work on love (e.g., Hen- Sexuality
drick & Hendrick, 1986, 1991) and recent
work on sexuality (e.g., Hendrick & Hen- Research has been fairly consistent in
drick, 1987c;Oliver & Hyde, 1993;Oliver & showing women’s sexual attitudes to be
Sedikides, 1992) by linking sexuality and more conservative than men’s, although not
love in an exploration of gender differences in every area (e.g., Hendrick, Hendrick,
and similarities. Slapion-Foote, & Foote, 1985; Sprecher &
McKinney, 1993). For example, men report
their attitudes to be more sexually permis-
Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to sive than women report theirs to be, but
Susan S. Hendrick, Department of Psychology, Texas women and men do not necessarily differ-
Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-2051. entially endorse attitudes about the emo-

55
56
tional meanings of sexuality or the impor-
tance of sexual practices such as birth con-
trol and sex education (Hendrick & Hen-
drick, 1987~).A recent meta-analysis of
gender differences in sexuality (Oliver &
Hyde, 1993) found large gender differences
on masturbation and attitudes toward cas-
ual premarital sex, but only moderate to
nonexistent differences on the several other
variables (21 total) under analysis. Chang-
ing attitudes exist toward premarital sexual
involvement (more acceptable), and there
have been accompanying changes in sexual
behavior (higher rates of premarital sex for
high school and college-aged women now
match or exceed rates of men; e.g.,
Beeghley & Sellers, 1986).Thus, sexual atti-
tude and behavior similarities between
women and men coexist with attitude and
behavior differences.
Still other research has explored gender
differences in society’s normative expecta-
tions for premarital sexual behavior, re-
ferred to as the sexual “double standard.”
In essence, the sexual double standard in
regard to premarital sexuality means that
premarital sexual intercourse is more ac-
ceptable for men than for women. Al-
though a number of studies indicate that
the traditional double standard has de-
creased, some aspects of the double stand-
ard remain. For example, Oliver and
Sedikides (1992) found that, although
women and men overall prefer less permis-
sive partners to more permissive partners,
men more than women preferred “higher
levels of sexual permissiveness in partners
in low-commitment conditions” (p. 326). In
other words, in evaluating the acceptability
of certain sexual behaviors, the gender of
the participants is still relevant, but may be
less important than it once was.
Love
Although an examination of gender and
sexuality is important, linking sexuality with
love and setting both within the context of a
relationship is also important (Hendrick &
Hendrick, 19874.Previous research on love
S. S. Hendrick and C. Hendrick
using Lee’s multidimensional love styles ap-
proach has found relatively consistent gen-
der differences. In this approach there are
six attitudes toward (or “styles” of) love:
Eros (passionate), Ludus (game-playing),
Storge (friendship), Pragma (practical), Ma-
nia (possessive, dependent), and Agape (al-
truistic) love. Men typically report them-
selves to be more gams-playing, whereas
women are more likely to endorse friend-
ship, practicality, and manic love (Hendrick
& Hendrick, 1986). Gender differences in
love are apparent when considering mean
scores; however, patterns of relationships
between the love styles and variables such
as sexual attitudes, self-disclosure, and sen-
sation-seeking are relatively similar for
women and men (Hendrick & Hendrick,
1987b).
It is apparent that gender differences in
sexual and love attitudes have been found
rather consistently, although such differ-
ences are not uniform across all love and
sex attitude variables. Indeed, there are
many exceptions to what are considered
typical gender differences in intimate rela-
tionships (e.g., Hrdy, 1981).In addition, love
and sex are often examined separately. Fur-
ther exploration of these variables-par-
ticularly when considered jointly-seems
warranted; however, such explorations are
most usefully guided by theory.
Theoretical Perspectives
In seeking to explore gender differences in
sex and love, scholars have increasingly
turned to sociobiological explanations (e.g.,
Hendrick & Hendrick, 1991; Oliver &
Hyde, 1993; Sprecher, Sullivan, & Hatfield,
1994), although social learning and related
theories (e.g., social role theory, script the-
ory [Gagnon & Simon, 19731, feminist the-
ory [MacCorquodale, 19891) offer equally
plausible explanations.
Sociobiology
Sociobiologists and evolutionary psycholo-
gists argue that the driving force for inti-
mate romantic relationships is reproductive
Gender differences and similarities
success-the evolutionary fitness inherent
in passing on one’s genes (Symons, 1979).
Such fitness is differentially achieved for
women and men, as indicated by the paren-
tal investment model (Kenrick, 1989;
Trivers, 1972). Men can maximize their fit-
ness by impregnating as many women as
possible, whereas women maximize their
fitness by investing heavily in each of the
relatively few infants they may produce
(Kenrick, 1987). Implications for sexuality
include greater sexual permissiveness for
men, a greater number of sexual partners,
and a more casual attitude toward sex (e.g.,
Oliver & Hyde, 1993).
Differences in reproductive strategies
suggest probable gender differences in
other aspects of intimate relationships, in-
cluding love (Hinde, 1984).Indeed, findings
that men are more game-playing in their
love styles than are women, while women
are more practical and friendship-oriented,
have been proposed to reflect the different
reproductive strategies implied by sociobi-
ological theory (e.g., Hendrick & Hendrick,
1991). “More ludic game-playing by young
males should, on the average, lead to more
sexual liaisons, thereby enhancing their re-
productive success. A more pragmatic ori-
entation toward love by young females
should, on the average, enhance their re-
productive success because it will likely
take into account both genetic and eco-
nomic ‘fitness’of a potential partner” (Hen-
drick & Hendrick, 1991, p. 211).
Social learning theories
Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) and
related theories such as script theory (Gag-
non & Simon, 1973) make a similar major
point: namely, that women and men are re-
warded by society for behaving in ways
congruent with traditional gender role con-
ceptualizations. And both genders may be
punished when they do not conform. Schol-
ars in this tradition may argue that “the
strength of childhood learning of gender
roles results in gendered sexual scripts”
(MacCorquodale, 1989,p. 103),which foster
57
active, wide-ranging sexuality for men and
passive, monogamous sexuality for women.
Thus, men are expected to be sexually ac-
tive and exploratory, as part of a traditional
men’s role (e.g., sexually permissive, game-
playing in love), while women (guardians of
their own sexuality, as well as restraining
forces for men’s sexuality [Cate & Lloyd,
19921) should be more oriented to the emo-
tional aspects of sex, to the stable and prac-
tical aspects of love, and potentially also to
relationship investment and commitment.
What is immediately obvious is that
these two perspectives-sociobiology and
social learning-are often congruent rather
than conflicting (e.g., Sprecher et al., 1994).
Indeed, both perspectives informed the cur-
rent work. In addition, one critical aspect of
the current work is the linking of sexuality
with love. Mellen (1981) proposed that love
evolved in humans as a bonding mechanism
to promote parents’ investment in their off-
spring and in each other during the long
period of human infant dependency, where
both mother and father caretaking is re-
quired (see also Barash, 1986). Thus, love
and sex are best considered together.
Research Hypotheses
Based on previous empirical work on love
and sexuality and guided theoretically by
both sociobiology and social learning the-
ory, broadly construed, we generated a
number of hypotheses, primarily centered
on gender differences and similarities,to be
tested. They are as follows:
Sexuality. Consistent with previous re-
search, as well as with both theoretical ap-
proaches, men were expected to be more
permissive and instrumental in their sexual
attitudes, and women were expected to be
more oriented to the emotional aspects
of sex.
Love. Consistent with previous research, as
well as with both sociobiology and social
learning theory, men were expected to be
more game-playing than women, whereas
58 S. S. Hendrick and C. Hendrick

women were expected to be more storgic semesters from undergraduate psychology

and pragmatic than men. Women were also classes at a large southwestern university.
predicted to be more manic (consistent with They were given a research packet consist-
previous findings),although theoretical sup- ing of a consent form, a cover sheet describ-
port for this hypothesis was less direct. ing the research project, and several instru-
ments. Participants providing incomplete or
Other relationship variables. Consistent obviously inaccurate data (e.g., all re-
with sociobiology as well as with some pre- sponses the same) were excluded. The ef-
vious research (Hendrick & Hendrick, fective sample for time period 1(1988) con-
1988), women were expected to report sisted of 365 participants (185 women, 180
more investment in and commitment to men), for time period 2 (1992) 358 partici-
their romantic relationships. Consistent pants (254 women, 104 men), and for time
with this approach, men were expected to period 3 (1993) 367 participants (207
report having had more sexual partners. For women, 160 men). The total sample con-
relationship satisfaction, women were ex- sisted of 1,090 participants.
pected to be more satisfied than men (Hen-
drick and Hendrick [1988] found women in
dating relationships to be more satisfied Description of the sample. For the total
than men in such relationships), although sample, 59% were women and 41% men.
large differences would not be expected. Fi- Some 81YOwere White-non-Hispanic, 12%
nally, based on these several predictions, White-Hispanic, 3% Black, 2% Asian, and
women were also expected to report being 2% Other. For age, 77% were 19 or less,
more in love than were men. 17% were 20-22, and 7% were 23 or over.
Some 41% were raised in towns of fewer
Additional hypotheses. Oliver and Hyde than 50,000,whereas 58% came from towns
(1993) found that women and men showed or cities of over 50,000. In describing their
similar mean levels of a particular variable intimate relationships, 41YOof respondents
(e.g., small differences in number of sexual said that they were not currently in love,
partners) for which sociobiological theory whereas 59% said they were in love. Some
might have predicted large differences, and 43% reported that they were not in a ro-
Oliver and Hyde conjectured that more mantic relationship, whereas 57% said they
proximal relationship-relevant variables were currently in one. Of those currently in
might govern patterns of sexuality in more a relationship, 34% said it was not sexual,
complex ways than suggested by simple whereas 66% said that it was a sexual one.
gender differences. Thus, the current re- Finally, 94% said that they were single, 4%
search predicted that correlation patterns married, and 2% separated or divorced.
among relationship variables would be Additional questions were asked about age
somewhat different for women and men, at first love, number of times in love, loving
likely linking love and relationship variables more than one person at a time, depth of
(e.g., investment, commitment, satisfaction) current love, falling out of love, importance
to each other more strongly for women than of romantic love, whether in love with rela-
for men, while showing stronger correla- tionship partner, whether in love with
tions between sexuality and relationship someone in addition to partner, whether co-
variables for men than for women. habiting, number of previous romantic rela-
tionships, and number of previous sexual
Method relationships.
Subjects Measures
Participants were recruited and tested in Background information. This set of items
groups during the fall 1988,1992, and 1993 solicited information about participants'
Gender differences and similarities 59

background and personal relationship his- ment scale (Lund, 1985), with a current al-
tory. pha of 3 8 . Two items measured investment
(time, resources, and emotion) by both the
Sexual Attitudes Scale. This instrument participant and the partner in a relationship
(Hendrick et al., 1985; Hendrick & Hen- and were summed. This measure has been
drick, 1987c) is a 43-item scale designed to used in previous research (Hendrick &
measure four attitude constellations about Hendrick, 1988; Hendrick, Hendrick, &
sexuality.The subscales measuring these at- Adler, 1988) and has a reported Cronbach
titude constellations include permissive- alpha of .75.
ness (casual sexuality), sexual practices Instructions for all relationship-relevant
(tolerant, responsible sexuality), commun- measures asked participants to respond
ion (idealistic sexuality), and instrumental- with their current partner in mind, or if no
ity (biological sexuality). The subscales are current partner, then with their most recent
designed in a 5-point Likert format. Cron- partner, and if never in a relationship, then
bach alphas for the current study ranged with their ideal partner in mind.
from .73 for sexual practices to .95 for per-
missiveness,and test-retest reliabilities (ap-
Results
proximately 2-month interval) have been
reported as ranging from .66 to .88 (Hen- Results will be presented in the following
drick & Hendrick, 1987~). order. First, chi-square analyses compar-
ing the three time periods on all demo-
Love Attitudes Scale. This instrument (Hen- graphic items will be presented briefly.
drick & Hendrick, 1986, 1990), a 42-item Second, group comparisons will be pre-
measure with six subscales (7 items each), sented on all dependent variables for gen-
was designed to assess the six major love der. Finally, correlations of sexual and re-
styles defined by Lee’s (1973) theory of lationship variables will be presented,
love. The subscales include Eros (passion- separately by gender.
ate love), Ludus (game-playing love),
Storge (friendship-based love), Pragma
Subsample comparisons
(practical love), Mania (dependent, posses-
sive love), and Agape (altruistic love). This Chi-square analyses were performed to
scale uses a 5-point Likert format, with cur- compare the three time period samples on
rent Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging 26 demographic and relationship items. Of
from .75 for Eros to .86 for Agape, and these, 9 were significant. The first analysis
test-retest reliabilities (approximately 2- indicated that there were relatively more
month interval) reported as ranging from women than men in the 1992 and 1993 sam-
.60 to .78 (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986).The ples than in the 1988sample.Eight questions
1986 version of the scale was used in this about relationships produced significant ef-
research. fects, although subsample differences were
quite modest, and there were no discernible
Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS). This patterns. For example, 1992 and 1993 sam-
seven-item unidimensional scale assesses ples differed from the 1988 sample in that
general relationship satisfaction and is pre- fewer people in the later samples had loved
sented in a 5-point Likert format (Hen- more than one person at a time. However,
drick, 1988). The current Cronbach alpha the 1988 and 1992samples differed from the
was 37. 1993 sample in that the 1993 sample had
proportionately more people who were not
Additional measures. Additional items ex- in love. Overall, the three subsamples ap-
plored other aspects of relationships. Four peared to be quite comparable; there were
items were drawn from a longer Commit- no drastic differences in either relationship
60 S. S. Hendrick and C. Hendrick

Table 1. R*,F ratios, and means for effects of gender on selected sexual, love, and
relationship variables
Means

Men Women
Variable R2 Univariate F (N= 444) (N= 646)
Sex Attitudes
Permissiveness .28 425.84*** 2.49 1.56
Sexual practices .oo .19 4.18 4.17
Communion .oo .67 3.96 4.00
Instrumentality .01 8.69** 2.56 2.41
Love Attitudes
Eros .oo 1.52 3.88 3.93
Ludus .08 98.51*** 2.64 2.12
Storge .02 23.49*** 3.42 3.69
Pragma .02 17.78*** 2.71 2.96
Mania .01 8.98'* 2.94 3.10
Agape .oo .17 3.86 3.83
Relationship Variables
Investment .02 26.25**" 3.82 4.12
Commitment .02 27.35*** 3.35 3.73
Satisfaction .02 17.15*** 3.63 3.85
Relationship History
In love now .02 21.49'** 1.50 1.64
How much in love .02 24.32*** 2.47 2.96
Importance of love .01 14.71*** 3.44 3.68
Times in love .oo 4.7s 2.63 2.50
Previous romantic
partners .01 10.12- 3.22 2.94
Previous sexual
partners .06 73.04*"* 2.55 1.91

Note: For all variables, higher scores mean greater endorsement. Only univariate Fratios are shown. R2 pro-
vides a measure of association between gender and a given dependent variable.
'I' < .0s. "I-' < 01. *"hp
< ,001.

experience or social attitudes. In addition, history (whether in love; how deeply in

ANOVAs revealed few cohort differences.
Thus, we concluded that the subsamples
were sufficiently similar in terms of back-
ground and attitudes to warrant combining
them for gender comparisons on the several
dependent variables of interest.
Mean comparisons for gender
MANOVAs were performed using gender
as the independent variable and sexual atti-
tudes (permissiveness, sexual practices,
communion, instrumentality), love atti-
tudes (Eros, Ludus, Storge, Pragma, Mania,
Agape), relationship variables (investment,
commitment, satisfaction), and relationship
love; the importance of love; and number of
previous love partners; previous romantic
relationships; and previous sexual partners)
as sets of dependent variables. The overall
MANOVAs for gender were significant for
all four sets of dependent variables. The
MANOVA F ratios were as follows: sex at-
titudes = 127.06 (4,1085); love attitudes =
30.18 (6,1083); relationship variables =
10.79 (3,1086);relationship history = 19.03
( 6 , 1 0 8 3 ) ;<
~ .001 in all cases. The R2,means
and F ratios for the four sets of variables
are shown in Table 1.
For sexual attitudes, there were two sig-
nificant univariate effects. As predicted,
men were more permissive and instrumen-
Gender differences and similarities
tal than women in their sexual attitudes.
However, the hypothesis that women
would be more emotionally focused than
men (more endorsing of communion) was
not supported.
For love attitudes, there were four sig-
nificant univariate effects. As predicted,
men were more game-playing, whereas
women were more friendship-oriented,
practical, and manic in their love styles.
For the additional relationship variables,
all three univariate effects were significant.
Consistent with predictions, women were
more endorsing of relationship satisfaction
on the RAS than men and also reported
more investment and commitment in their
relationships.
For the relationship history variables, all
six questions produced significant univari-
ate results. Men reported having more sex-
ual partners, more times in love, and more
previous romantic relationships than
women reported. But women were more
likely than men to say they were currently in
love, that they were more deeply in love, and
that love was more important to them.
The hypotheses predicted by sociobiol-
ogy (and consistent with some social learn-
ing theories) that men would generally be
more oriented to sex and women to love
were largely confirmed. The variance ac-
counted for by the gender difference in per-
missiveness was substantial (R2 = .28). The
differences for Ludus (R2 = .08) and for
number of previous sexual partners (R2 =
.06) were also worth noting. Other differ-
ences were more modest. However, the
small size of most of these differences was
in line with expectations. Large differences
between men and women would not be ex-
pected on many variables (e.g., Oliver &
Hyde, 1993).
Correlational comparisonsfor gender
Based on previous research and theoretical
support for men and women experiencing
relational sexuality in somewhat different
ways, correlations were computed-sepa-
61
rately for women and men-between the
sexual attitude variables and the love, rela-
tionship, and relationship history variables.
Results are shown in Table 2. What is imme-
diately apparent is that the correlation pat-
terns for men and women are very similar.
There were 60 pairs of correlations, and
only 11were significantly different between
men and women. Only 5 of the 11 pairs
involved correlations greater than .30 for at
least one gender; of these, 4 of the 5 pairs
involved sexual permissiveness, with men
showing a greater positive correlation be-
tween permissive sexuality and game-play-
ing love, number of previous romantic rela-
tionships, and number of previous sexual
partners. Also, men showed a greater nega-
tive correlation than women between per-
missiveness and altruistic love. Men also
showed a stronger positive correlation be-
tween instrumental sexuality and game-
playing love. Although such findings are
consistent with either sociobiological or
social learning predictions, they only par-
tially support our hypothesis of different
sex-relationship correlation patterns for
women and men. The other 6 correlations
showing significant differences (all under
.30), as well as the nearly 50 correlations
showing no differences, indicate that the
links between women's and men's attitudes
toward sexuality and other relevant rela-
tionship variables are very similar.' Be-
cause of the findings of both gender differ-
ences and similarities in sexual attitudes
and relationship variables, some additional
work was conducted.
Additional exploration
To explore the issue of gender similarities
and differences further, a more qualitative
approach was taken. Participants in ad-
vanced undergraduate psychology classes
(as part of their class period) were asked to
1. Additional analyses employed regression to predict
relationship satisfaction, separately by gender. Pre-
dictors for women and men were nearly identical.
62 S. S. Hendrick and C. Hendrick

Table 2. Correlations between sexual attitudes and relationship variables, separately by

gender
Permissiveness Sex Practices Communion Instrumentality
Eros .02 .03 . 2 r .oo
.03 .14*** .30”** - .oo
Ludus

Storge -.26*”’
.13**
.01
- .05
-.09*
.04
.06
I
- .20”** -.02 .04 -.01
Pragma -.13** - .14** .05 .15**
-.12** - .07 .01 .04
Mania

Agape
.01
-
.02
.06
.oo
.21***
.18***
.1v*
.09*
-.04
-.22**’
I
- .21*** .04 .21*** -.09*
Investment -.20*”* .oo .14** -.14**
-.13*** .05 .12** - .02
Commitment - .24**’ -.03 .16*** -.14*“
-.16*”* .05 .08* - .06
Satisfaction - .23*** - .01 .17*** -.16***
-.21*** - .01 .09* -.11**
In love -.12* .04 .02 -.11*
- .01 so* .14*** - .01
How much in love .01 .04 -.14**
- .05 .11”” .16*** - .04
Importance of love
Times in love
.13**
.02
.05
-.lo*
- .09*
.16***
-.23***
- .25***
.12**
14**
-.01
.05
I
.13*** .08 .06 .03
Previous romantic .17”*” .lo* .09
relationships .08* .07 - .03
Previous sexual .23+”* .11* .24***
partners .23**” .11** .08’

Nore: For each pair of correlations, the correlation for women is shown below the correlation for men. A signifi-
cant difference between the two correlations is shown by a bar. In all cases, positive correlations reflect positive
relationships and negative correlations reflect negative relationships.
’ p < .os.**p< .01. ***p< ,001.

provide some demographic information
and to write an account of a romantic rela-
tionship, including the sexual aspects. The
guiding sentence of the instructions said,
“We want to know how you and your rela-
tionship partner met, how the relationship
developed, how love was experienced, and
how you experienced the physicalhexual
aspects of the relationship.” Some 80 stu-
dents (59 women, 21 men) participated in
the research; however, for the current pres-
entation, 21 of the women’s accounts were
drawn randomly and, along with the men’s
accounts,were examined. About 70% of the
men and 80% of the women were under
age 23. About 80% of both women and men
wrote about current relationships, whereas
20% wrote about past or ideal relation-
ships.
The accounts were rated separately by
the two authors on the basis of overall ori-
entation to sexuality in the relationship,
based on a typology developed by DeLa-
mater (1989): Relational Orientation (sex
Gender differences and similarities
deepens a relationship), Procreational Ori-
entation (sex is to produce children), and
Recreational Orientation (sex is for fun).
Based on both sociobiological and social
learning theories, men might be expected to
be more recreational and women more re-
lational in their sexual accounts. In addi-
tion, the accounts were rated for affective
tone of the relationship (positive or nega-
tive) and whether the partners mentioned
in their accounts having had sexual inter-
course with one another.
There was good agreement for orienta-
tion (95% for women, 90% for men), tone
(95% for men, 90% for women), and inter-
course (95% for both women and men). For
men, only 1 of the 21 accounts ( 5 % ) was
recreational; all of the others (95%) were
relational. Some 90% were positive (10%
negative), and 62% of the relationships in-
cluded intercourse, whereas 38% did not.
For women, all accounts were relational,
and 81% were positive, 14% negative, and
5 % moved from positive to negative in
tone. Some 71% included sexual inter-
course, whereas 29% did not.
Thus, overall, women’s and men’s ac-
counts were relatively similar. Both men
and women wrote about relationships that
were largely relational and positive and
that included sexual intercourse about two-
thirds of the time. In light of the instructions
given to participants, it was not surprising to
find such a preponderance of relational
themes; nevertheless, we had not expected
the absence of either recreational or pro-
creational themes. However, in other re-
spects these findings were consistent with
previous research employing relationship
accounts (e.g., Hendrick & Hendrick, 1993)
and provided an interesting footnote to the
quantitative findings.
Discussion
A number of findings have been reported,
painting somewhat different pictures of
women’s and men’s relational sexuality.
First of all, the gender differences in the
mean levels of the variables of interest are
63
too consistent to ignore. In four MANO-
VAs employing 19 variables, women and
men differed on 15 of them, sometimes
quite substantially.Women, as compared to
men, were less permissive and instrumental
in their sexual attitudes and more friend-
ship-oriented, practical, dependent, and
less game-playing in their love attitudes.
Women were more committed to, invested
in, and happier with their relationships.
They also subscribed more to being in love,
to being in love more deeply, and saying
that love was more important. Men re-
ported having been in love more times and
having had more relationship partners and
more sexual partners. Thus, the hypotheses
based on sexuality, love, and relationship
variables were in large measure supported.
It is important to note that the findings
were not as simple as “men are sexually per-
missive, and women are not.” In fact, both
men and women were somewhat negative
toward permissiveness (scoring below the
neutral point of 3.0), defined by this meas-
ure as a casual, uncommitted attitude to-
ward sexuality. However, given the caveat
that both men and women may relatively
disagree with permissiveness and relatively
agree with friendship love, nevertheless they
do differ significantly on several constructs
(most notably on permissiveness).How can
we best explain such differences?
Given the nature of the differences, a
sociobiological explanation appears viable;
women and men have different mating
strategies, with men being more sexually
permissive in order to maximize their re-
productive potential and women being
more stable and committed in order to
maximize theirs. However, a social learning
explanation is also plausible; gender-based
social and sexual scripts foster this wide-
ranging sexuality for men and a more mo-
nogamous one for women.
It would be tempting to stop the discus-
sion at this point, noting that women are
simply more relational and men more rec-
reational in their orientations to sexuality
in relationships. However, that would ig- -
nore a number of additional findings.
64
There is more to the issue
Based on a consideration of the ANOVAs,
women and men were similarly responsible,
tolerant, and idealistic in sex and erotic and
altruistic in love. This point is worth noting.
In addition, correlations between the sexual
attitude variables and the love and relation-
ship variables were virtually identical for
women and men-not supporting the hy-
pothesis of gender differences in correla-
tion patterns. Even in the written accounts,
both men and women, virtually without ex-
ception, subscribed to a relational orienta-
tion whether the relationship involved in-
tercourse or not. In reading the following
passages drawn from four accounts, we be-
lieve many readers will have difficulty de-
termining which ones were written by men
and which by women.
It seems we’ve always knowneachother.We love
to cuddle. Sometimes X spends the night at my
apartment. . . . I love waking up in the morning
next to X. . . . Sometimes when we’re hugging, I
tingle all over.
Neither of us views sex as shameful or inhibited.
We enjoy finding ways to please each other and
exploring each other. . . . But I would have to say
that our whole relationship developed from our
friendship.
I don’t sleep around, and I was surprised that I’d
let myself be with X so soon. Things didn’t go so
well . . .but we didn’t give up. Now I feel that our
having sex-really making love-has brought us
closer.
The sex is good. X is very much into pleasing
me-likes to touch and rub. But sex is not the es-
sence of our relationship, and we don’t sleep to-
gether every time we’re together. But when we
do have sex, it’s terrific!
The first two accounts were written by
men and the last two accounts by women.
Overall it appears that there are some con-
sistent differences, but also many substan-
tial similarities between women and men
on various aspects of sexual relating.
S.S. Hendrick and C. Hendrick
Gender differences have been well
documented, and gender similarities are
consistent with previous research on rela-
tionship variables (Hendrick & Hendrick,
1987b). Sorting out the meanings behind
these differences and similarities is no easy
task. It has recently been proposed (Feld-
man, Araujo, & Winder, 1994) that men are
more likely than women to have casual
romantic/sexual relationships (e.g., more
permissive), but are likely to be equally
“relational” in their serious romantic rela-
tionships. Such arguments are consistent
with sociobiological theory, which proposes
that men promote their evolutionary fit-
ness by bonding with the mother of their
potential offspring, at least during the criti-
cal period of infant dependency (e.g., Mel-
len, 1981). Social learning theories and
other research would also support the idea
of men settling down into committed rela-
tionships after having done some sexual ex-
ploring (e.g., Cate & Lloyd, 1992). Such
findings underscore the importance of at-
tending to the context within which sexu-
ality is experienced.
It may also be that men’s and women’s
experiences within the sexualhelationship
context are not really so different, and that
similarity of relationship experience will
maximize fitness in the future. Although
different reproductive strategies may have
served men and women well historically, as
Barash (1986) pointed out, our culture has
rapidly outpaced our biology, and the two
must be reconciled. The penalties for sexual
permissiveness in the era of HIV are con-
siderable, and, indeed, if enough emotional
and material parental investment is not
given to today’s offspring, no one’s fitness
will be maximized. Thus, some essential
similarities between women’s and men’s re-
lational sexuality should not surprise us, but
we cannot ignore the differences. However,
it is important not to overemphasize these
differences lest we promote “an emphasis
on trivial differences at the expense of
broader and more consequential similari-
ties” (Wright, 1988, p. 371). What cay2 be
concluded based on the current research is
Gender differences and similarities
that any discussion of gender and sexuality
in intimate relationships must embrace
both gender differences and gender simi-
larities.
References
Bandura, A. J. (1977). Social learning theory. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barash, D. P. (1986). The hare and the fortoise: Culture,
hiology, and human nature. New York: Penguin
Books.
Beeghley, L., & Sellers, C. (1986). Adolescents and sex:
A structural theory of premarital sex in the United
States. Deviant Behavior, 7, 313-336.
Cate, R. M., & Lloyd, S. A. (1992). Courtship. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
DeLamater, J. (1989). The social control of human
sexuality. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.),
Human sexuality: The societal and interpersonal
context (pp. 30-62). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Feldman, S. S., Araujo, K., & Winder, A . (1994, Feb-
ruary). The rclationship context: Its differential ef-
fect on sexual attitudes and behaviors. In W.
Furman & R. Turner (Co-Chairs), Sexuality and
interper,sonal relationships. Symposium conducted
at the Fifth Biennial Meeting of the Society for
Research on Adolescence, San Diego, CA.
Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct:
The social origins of human sexuality. Chicago: Ald-
ine.
Hcndrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and
method of love. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50, 392-402.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1988). Lovers wear
rose colored glasses. .Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 5, 161-183.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1990). A relation-
ship speciric version of the Love Attitudes Scale.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5,
239-25 4,
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1991). Dimensions of
love: A sociobiological perspective. Journal of So-
cial and Clinical Psychology, 10, 206-230.
Hendrick, S.S. (1988). A generic measure of relation-
ship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Fam-
ily, SO, 93-98.
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1987a). Love and sex
attitudes: A close relationship. In W. H. Jones & D.
Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships
(Vol. 1, pp. 141-169). Greenwich, C T JAI Press.
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1987b). Love and
sexual attitudes, self-disclosure and sensation seek-
ing. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4,
281-297.
Hendrick, S.S., & Hendrick, C. (1987~).Multidimen-
sionality of sexual attitudes. Journal of Sex Re-
search, 23,502-526.
65
Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1993). Lovers as
friends. .Journal of Social and Personal Relution-
ships, 10,459466.
Hendrick, S. S.,Hendrick, C., & Adler, N. L. (1988).
Romantic relationships: Love, satisfaction, and
staying together. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54,980-988.
Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C., Slapion-Footc, M. J., &
Foote, F. H. (1985). Gender differences in sexual
attitudes. Journal o,f Per~sonalityand Social Psy-
chology, 48,1630-1642.
Hinde, R. A. (1984). Why do the sexes behave diffcr-
ently in close relationships? Journal oJSocial and
Personal Relationships, I , 471-501.
Hrdy, S. B. (1981). The woman that never evolved.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kenrick, D. T. (1987). Gcndcr, genes, and the social
environment: A biosocial interactionist pcrspec-
tive. In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick (Eds.), Sex and
gender (pp. 14-43). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kenrick, D. T. (1989). Bridging social psychology and
sociobiology: The case of sexual attraction. In R. W.
Bell & N. J. Bell (Eds.), Sociobiology and the sociul
sciences (pp. 5-23). Lubbock, T X ‘TexasTech 1Jni-
versity Press.
Lee, J. A. (1973). The c01or.s of love: A n exploration
of the ways 01loving. Don Mills, Ontario: New
Press.
Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment and
commitment scales for predicting continuity of pcr-
sonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationslzips, 2, 3-23.
MacCorquodale, P. (1989). Gender and sexual behav-
ior. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Ifumun
sexuality: The societaland interpersonal context (pp.
91-112). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mellen, S. L. W. (1981). The evolution of love. San
Francisco: Freeman.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differcuccs
in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Rullr-
tin, 114,29-51.
Oliver, M. B., & Sedikides, C. (1992). Effects ofscxual
permissiveness on desirability of partner as a func-
tion of low and high commitment to relationship.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 55,321-333.
Sprecher, S., & McKinney, K. (1 993). Sexuality. New-
bury Park, CA: Sage.
Sprecher, S.,Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate
selection preferences: Gcndcr differences cxatn-
ined in a national sample. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 66,1074-1080.
Symons, D. (1979). Evolution ofhuman sexuality. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental invcstment and sexual
selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexualselectinn and
the descent ofmun (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldinc.
Wright, P. H. (1988). Interpreting research on gender
differences in friendship: A case for moderation
and a plea for caution. Journal of Social und Per-
sonal Relationships, 5, 367-373.