Sex Without Love: The ‘Whys’ and ‘Why Nots’
Snezana Vrangalova (Cornell University), Ritch C. Savin-Williams (Cornell University)
Abstract
Method
Participants
Reasons for engaging in casual sex were examined in a group of
University students and staff. 17 distinct types of motives were
identified from previous literature and classified using Self
Determination Theory. Results indicate that main motives for engaging
in CS are Intrinsic or highly internalized extrinsic, whereas reasons for
not engaging in it are primarily non-autonomous, particularly for males
and those with prior CS experience.
Demographics
Sex – Fem = 138, Mal = 17
Sexual orientation – Hetero = 78.4%; Non-hetero = 21.6%
Age – M = 24.7 (6.1), R = 18-56 CS experience – Yes = 204 (74%); No = (71) 26%
Ethnicity – Caucasian = 65%; Asian = 15%; Hispanic = 8.5%; Other = 11.5%
Religiousness on a scale 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Very) – M = 2.01 (1.1)
Number of total lifetime sex partners
Number of lifetime CS partners
R = 1-57; M = 11 (11.4); Med = 7.5
R = 1-57; M = 7.9 (10.2); Med = 5
-Defined In this study CS as any form of genital sexual contact including, but not
limited to, mutual masturbation, oral sex, penile-vaginal intercourse, or anal
intercourse between two or more people who are not currently dating nor
emotionally attached to one another.
Instruments
Motivations For Casual Sex. 54 reasons for engaging in CS identified from previous literature, representing
17 types of motives, were classified according to the level of self-determination. Respondents rated the
likelihood of engaging in CS for each (see Table 2).
Why is studying CS and CS motivation important?
Self-Determination Theory – SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000)
Human behaviors can be carried out with varying degrees of autonomy (selfdetermination), ranging from Intrinsic motivation, doing something for the inherent
satisfaction of the activity itself, to Extrinsic motivation, doing something to attain
some other goal, which can be internalized to various extent, to Amotivation
performing an act without conscious intention (see also Table 1).
-Performing an activity for more autonomous reasons is related to greater
effectiveness, well-being, and social adjustment.
Motivation Against Casual Sex. 17 reasons for NOT engaging in CS identified from previous literature,
representing 5 types of motives, were classified according to the level of self-determination. Respondents
rated the likelihood of NOT engaging in CS with someone they find physically attractive for each reason
(see Table 4).
Explore reasons for and against CS engagement and create an meaningful typology
of motives using SDT as a framework.
Table 1. Types of motivation according to SDT
Autonomous
Non-autonomous
Instrinsic
Extrinsic – Introjected
Extrinsic – Integrated Extrinsic – External
Extrinsic – Identified
Amotivation
Predictions
P1. Autonomous motivation types are more important for engaging in CS, whereas
non-autonomous are more characteristic for choosing not to engage in it.
P2. Motivation types nearer to one another in the self-determination continuum are
more highly, positively correlated than those further away.
P3. Male sex and previous CS experience are expected to predict higher
endorsement of motivations for and lower endorsement of motivations against CS.
Chart 2. Motivation for engaging in CS by sex
3.5
3.5
Experienced
Inexperienced
Cron. α
0.8046
Type of motivation (# items)
Intrinsic (5 items)
CS as sexually pleasurable
CS as an exciting activity
Integrated (7 items)
Definition and examples
CS as fun and enjoyable
e.g. Because casual sex satisfies my sexual needs
e.g. Because I like the thrill and novelty of new partners
CS as important part of one’s sexuality and overall identity
Sexual learning opportunity
Physical tension decrease
CS as rebellion
Identified (16 items)
e.g. To gain sexual experience
e.g. To relieve sexual tension
e.g. I like doing the ‘forbidden’
Achieving an important personal, but separable outcome
Mood & self-esteem regulation
Sociality enhancement
Domination/Submission
Intimacy enhancement
Introjected (12 items)
e.g. It helps me deal with disappointment and loneliness.
e.g. To get to know different people and make new friends.
e.g. It feels great when the other person finally surrenders to me.
e.g. To get emotionally closer to my partner.
Motivated by guilt, anxiety, obligation, pride or self-pressure
Partner satisfaction
Status increase
Peer conformity
Intimacy avoidance
External (6 items)
e.g. Because I wouldn’t want to upset my partner.
e.g. To score another success.
e.g. Because all my friends are also having casual sex.
e.g. I am not emotionally ready for a serious relationship.
Motivated by desire for direct rewards or fear of punishment
Material reward
Partner retribution
Amotivation (5 items)
Coercion
Unconscious
Total (51 items)
e.g. It was a fun way to get free gifts.
e.g. To revenge against a current partner for his/her infidelity
No autonomy (intentionality) in CS engagement
e.g. Because of verbal pressure from the other person.
e.g. I was too drunk or on drugs to know what I was doing.
Males
Females
3
3
2.5
2.5
0.7548
0.8434
2
2
1.5
1.5
0.8018
1
1
Autonomous*
0.7606
0.7110
0.9313
Graph 3. Endorsment of Motivation for Engaging in Casual Sex among CS
experienced respondents
4
Non-autonomous
Overall
Autonomous**
Non-autonomous
Overall*
Intrinsic and internalized motives dominate all respondents
engagements in casual sex, although male and CS
experienced respondents value autonomous motives more
highly than female and the CS inexperienced (Graph 1 & 2).
Men endorse several types of motives more than women,
including intrinsic, integrated, and introjected reasons,
although these gender differences are attenuated among
CS experienced respondents (see Graph 3).
Males
3.5
Chart 5. Motivation for not engaging in CS by prior CS experience
Motivations AGAINST casual sex
Females
Table 3. Intercorrelation among types of motivation in CS experienced respondents
Intrinsic Integrated Identified Introjected External Amotivation
Intrinsic
1.0000
0.6762
0.5947
0.5529
0.2790
0.0617
Integrated
1.0000
0.6771
0.6235
0.3189
0.1532
Identified
1.0000
0.6726
0.4326
0.3239
Introjected
1.0000
0.5065
0.4564
External
1.0000
0.4704
Amotivation
1.0000
3
4
Inexperienced
Experienced
2.5
3.5
Chart 4. Endorsment of Motivations for not engaging in casual sex
2
3.5
Females
3
Males
1.5
3
2.5
1
Intrinsic**
2.5
Integrated
Identified
Introjected*
External
Amotivation
Overall
As expected, strongest positive correlations were found
between motivational forms adjacent to one another on
the continuum of self-determination (Table 3).
2
2
Conclusions and future research
1.5
1
1.5
Non-autonomous
Overall
Autonomous
Current study
Chart 1. Motivation for engaging in CS by prior CS experience
Table 1.
281 subjects filled out an online survey asking them about their attitudes toward and experiences with
casual sex, including their reasons for engaging or not engaging in it.
Casual Sex (CS)
-Many people are having it. More than 70% of undergraduates report at least one
CS encounter (e.g. Paul & Hayes, 2002).
-It has been proposed that some people possess a relatively stable tendency toward
it: sociosexual orientation (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991).
-CS engagement and orientation are often accused of being cause and/or indicator
of mental health and personality problems (e.g. Grello et al, 2003; Paul & Hayes,
2002). Yet, evidence for such links is very inconclusive (e.g. Schmitt, 2005).
We propose that one reason for this is overlooking motivations for people’s
involvement/interest in CS.
Few studies have explored reasons people engage in CS (Greiling & Buss, 2000;
Regan & Dreyer, 1999; Weaver & Herold, 2000) and even fewer the reasons for
NOT engaging in it (Weaver & Herold, 2000). These have been primarily descriptive
and provided no organizational framework for understanding CS motivation.
Motivations FOR casual sex
1
Autonomous
Non-autonomous
Overall
Table 4. Categorization of types of motivation for NOT engaging in CS using SDT
Type of motivation (# items) Definitions and examples
Cronb α
Intrinsic (3)
Not enjoyable
Identified-Integrated (3)
CS against personal morality
CS as an unhealthy activity
Introjected (7)
Fear for physical health
Fear for emotional well-being
External (5)
Fear of social sanctions
Overall (18)
CS as not sexually pleasurable
e.g. I don't like sex without love.
Not having CS as important part of overall identity
e.g. I think CS is wrong.
e.g. I think CS is psychologically unhealthy.
Motivated by desire to protect oneself
e.g. I'm afraid of getting HIV/AIDS.
e.g. I'm afraid I'd feel guilty afterwards.
Motivated by fear of punishment
e.g. I don't want to get a 'loose' reputation.
0.8509
0.9057
0.7596
0.8142
0.9038
Respondents without CS experience have
significantly more reasons of all types for
not engaging in it, and females have more
than men (not shown here).
For all men and CS experienced women,
non-autonomous reasons are significantly
more important than autonomous ones for
not having CS (Graph 4 & 5). Only CS
inexperienced women consider both types of
reasons equally important.
The intercorrelation among motivation types
(not shown here) demonstrates a simplex
structure for all respondent subgroups.
The many reasons people have for engaging and not engaging in casual sex can be placed along a continuum of self-determination.
Relatively autonomous reasons (such as finding CS pleasurable or achieving important personal goals) are significantly more important in
CS behaviors, than non-autonomous ones (such as conforming to peer or partner pressure, material profit, or being unconscious. On the
contrary, reasons for refusing to have CS with an attractive person are primarily of external nature and include fear of emotional and
physical hurt and of social repercussions.
Future research should examine more closely the structure of the different types of motivations in women and men separately, and to take
into consideration the different levels of self-determination when investigating the link between health and CS engagement.
References
Greiling, H. & Buss, D. (2000). Women's sexual strategies: The hidden dimension of extra-pair mating. J of Personality and Indvidual Differences, 28, 929-963.
Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., Harper, M. S., & Dickson, J. W. (2003). Dating and sexual relationship trajectories and adolescent functioning, 3, 103-11. Adolescent
and Family Health, 3, 103-111.
Paul, E. L., & Hayes, K. A. (2002). The casualties of `casual' sex: A qualitative exploration of the phenomenology of college students' hookups. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 19(5), 639-661.
Regan, P. C., & Dreyer, C. S. (1999). Lust? Love? Status? Young adults’ motives for engaging in casual sex. JPHS, 11, 1-24.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. Am Psych, 55, 68-78.
Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Is short-term mating the maladaptive result of insecure attachment? A test of competing evolutionary perspectives. PSPB, 31, 747-768.
Simpson, J. A. & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. JPSP, 60, 870-883.
Weaver, S. J. & Herold, E. S. (2000). Casual sex and women: Measurement and motivational issues. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 12, 23-41