For Love, Fun, or Some of Both: The Meaning of Sex and Casual ...

For Love, Fun, or Some of Both:
The Meaning of Sex and Casual
Sex Relationships Among
Emerging Adult College Men
Spencer B. Olmstead, Ph.D.
Rhett M. Billen, B.S.
Kathryn A. Conrad, B.S.
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Kay Pasley, Ed.D.
Frank D. Fincham, Ph.D.
The Florida State University

INTRODUCTION
• Emerging Adulthood
– A time of exploration and identity development 1
– College campus provide opportunity for romantic
relationship and sexual exploration 2
– Sexual decision making important part of
navigating campus social life 3
– A heterogeneous population 4

Romantic and Sexual Relationships
• Past research largely focused on sexual
intimacy in committed relationships 5
• Traditional dating scripts are largely outdated 2
• Multiple pathways to sexual intimacy
– Hookups
– Friends with benefits relationships

Casual Sex Relationships
Hooking Up
• Common on college
campuses 6
• Partner can be a recent
acquaintance, ex‐partner, or
friend 7,8
• No expectations for
commitment 6
• Includes a variety of
intimate behaviors 6
Friends With Benefits
• Less common than hookups 9
• Ongoing intimate relationship 10
• No expectations for
commitment 9
• May be guarded by rules and
guidelines 11
• Partners typically do not
classify the relationship as
“romantic” 11
• Includes a variety of intimate
behaviors 12

What Is Missing?
• Most studies on casual sex relationships
compare men and women
• Limited understanding of emerging adults
perceptions of the relationship between sex
and commitment
• Understanding about how men differ in their
perceptions of sex and sexual behaviors

Research Questions
1. What is the meaning of sex (i.e., sexual
activity, intercourse) for emerging adult
college men, and how do they see sex as
related to commitment?
2. How do men differ in their self‐reported
casual sex behaviors based on the meanings
of sex and its connection with commitment?

METHODS
• Participants
– 200 men enrolled in a family development course
– Most were White (67.5%), heterosexual (93%),
and underclassmen (36% freshmen, 34%
sophomores)
– Average age was 19.3 (SD = 1.62)
– Most reported their parents as married and living
together (68%) and not in a romantic relationship
(60%)

METHODS
• Procedures
– Participants from a larger project on emerging
adult romantic relationships
– Completed online survey at three points during
the semester
– Completed a series of open‐ended questions
about future committed romantic relationships as
part of a course assignment
– These responses linked to survey data

Qualitative Content Analysis
• For this study, we analyzed the following open‐ended
questions:
1. What does sex mean for you?
2. Is sex connected with commitment in a relationship and
why?
3. Does one [sex or commitment] come before the other?
4. How does your expectation in this area affect your sex
life?
• Used grounded theory methods (i.e., open, axial, and
selective coding) to analyze written responses to these
items

Quantitative Measures
• Demographic Characteristics
– Race/ethnicity (1 = White, 0 = All others)
– Year in school (1 = Underclassmen)
– Romantic relationship status (1 = In a RR)
– Family structure (1 = parents married and living together, 0 = All
others)
– Religious service attendance (0) Never or almost never to (3) one or
more times per week
• Hookups
– Reported number of hookup partners in past 12 months (range = 0 to
10 or more)
• Friends With Benefits
– Reported number of FWB in past 12 months (range = 0 to 4 or more)

RESULTS
• Qualitative Findings
– Three groups emerged from the data:
• The Committers (47%)
• The Opportunists (41%)
• The Recreationers (12%)

The Committers (47%)
• Describe sex as behaviors that exemplified
connection in a relationship, a means of expressing
love to one’s partner, and often as a demonstration
of commitment
• Consistently stated that sex and commitment were
linked, and that commitment comes prior to sex
• Of all groups, this one most frequently described
how the meaning they ascribed to sex affected their
sexual behaviors

The Opportunists (41%)
• Identified dual meanings for sex
– Sex as an expression of love, compassion, and a
representation of an intimate bond
– Sex as meaningless, a means to satisfy sexual
urges, a way to get one’s “mind off of things”, and
having “a good time”
• Sex and commitment could be related
• Could not readily identify how such ascribed
meaning affected sexual behaviors

The Recreationers (12%)
• Sex did not hold a meaning
– It is primarily for entertainment purposes
• Sex and commitment not connected
– Especially at this stage in the life course
• Their self ascribed meaning had little bearing
on actual sexual behavior

RESULTS
• Quantitative Findings
• Ran a series of chi‐square analyses and ANOVAs
• Demographic Items
– More White men were committers, more minority
men were opportunists
– Committers attended religious services more
frequently than did Opportunists
– No differences on year in school, romantic
relationship status, or family structure

Casual Sex Relationships
• Hookups
– Committers (M=1.97, SD=2.8) had fewer hookup
partners in the past 12 months than Opportunists
(M=4.51, SD=3.61) and Recreationers (M=4.43,
SD=3.63) groups (p≤.001, p=.01)
– No differences between Opportunists and
Recreationers groups

Casual Sex Relationships
• Friends With Benefits
– Committers (M=.40, SD=.79) had fewer FWBR
partners in the past 12 months than Opportunists
(M=1.42, SD=1.34) and Recreationers (M=1.73,
SD=1.61) groups (p≤.001, p=.003)
– No differences between Opportunists and
Recreationers groups

DISCUSSION
• Men differ in important ways regarding their
expectations and perceptions of the
relationship between sex and commitment
• These perceptions were largely supported by
self‐reports of casual sex behavior
• Our largest group of men does not fit with
stereotypical conceptions of the college male

Limitations and Implications
• Convenience sample of
college men
• Did not engage in
“member checking”
• “Sex” and
“commitment” were
not defined
• Social desirability bias
• Parent education
– Parents play an important role in
socializing children about
conceptions of sex
• Relationship education
– Promote safer sex practices and
intentional relationship decision
making among EAs
• Research
– Continue to explore variations in
college men’s sexual behaviors

REFERENCES
1. Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the early twenties. New York:
Oxford University Press.
2. Bogle, K. A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus. New York: New York University Press.
3. Allen, K. R., Husser, E. K., Stone, D. J., & Jordal, C. E. (2008). Agency and error in young adults’ stories of sexual decision
making. Family Relations, 57, 517‐529.
4. Arnett, J. J. (2006). Emerging adulthood: Understanding the new way of coming of age. In J. J. Arnett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.),
Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21 st century (pp. 3‐19). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
5. Morr Serewicz, M. C. M., & Gale, E. (2008). First date scripts: Gender roles, context, and relationship. Sex Roles, 58, 149‐
164.
6. Owen, J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). “Hooking up” among college students: Demographic and
psychosocial correlates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 653‐663.
7. Gute, G., & Eshbaugh, E. M (2008). Personality as a predictor of hooking up among college students. Journal of
Community Health Nursing, 25, 26‐43.
8. Fielder, R. L., & Carey, M. P. (2010). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual hookups among first‐semester female college
students. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 36, 346‐359.
9. Lehmiller, J. J., VanderDrift, L. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2011). Sex differences in approaching friends with benefits relationships.
The Journal of Sex Research, 48, 275‐284.
10. Epstein, M., Calzo, J. P., Smiler, A. P., & Ward, L. M. (2009). “Anything from making out to having sex”: Men’s negotiation
of hooking up and friends with benefits scripts. The Journal of Sex Research, 46, 414‐424.
11. Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, K. K. (2005). What’s love got to do with it? Exploring the impact of maintenance rules,
love attitudes, and network support on friends with benefits relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 69, 49‐66.
12. Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 66‐
73.