Reading logs

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjsr20

Download by: [98.234.143.16] Date: 16 April 2017, At: 10:37

The Journal of Sex Research

ISSN: 0022-4499 (Print) 1559-8519 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20

Do Women’s Orgasms Function as a Masculinity Achievement for Men?

Sara B. Chadwick & Sari M. van Anders

To cite this article: Sara B. Chadwick & Sari M. van Anders (2017): Do Women’s Orgasms Function as a Masculinity Achievement for Men?, The Journal of Sex Research, DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2017.1283484

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1283484

Published online: 23 Feb 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6404

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Do Women’s Orgasms Function as a Masculinity Achievement for Men?

Sara B. Chadwick Departments of Psychology and Women’s Studies, University of Michigan

Sari M. van Anders Departments of Psychology and Women’s Studies, Program in Neuroscience, Science, Technology,

and Society Program, Reproductive Sciences Program, University of Michigan

Orgasms have been promoted as symbols of sexual fulfillment for women, and have perhaps become the symbol of a woman’s healthy sex life. However, some research has suggested that this focus on women’s orgasms, though ostensibly for women, may actually serve men; but the mechanisms of this are unclear. In the present experiment, we hypothesized that women’s orgasms specifically function as a masculinity achievement for men. To test this, we randomly assigned 810 men (M age = 25.44, SD = 8.31) to read a vignette where they imagined that an attractive woman either did or did not orgasm during a sexual encounter with them. Participants then rated their sexual esteem and the extent to which they would feel masculine after experiencing the given situation. Our results showed that men felt more masculine and reported higher sexual esteem when they imagined that a woman orgasmed during sexual encounters with them, and that this effect was exacerbated for men with high masculine gender role stress. These results suggest that women’s orgasms do function—at least in part—as a masculinity achievement for men.

Women’s orgasms are promoted as symbols of sexual libera- tion and satisfaction, and have become one of the ultimate indicators of a (heterosexual) woman’s healthy sex life (Opperman, Braun, Clarke, & Rogers, 2014). Books, maga- zines, and medical journals have actively integrated women’s orgasms into concepts of healthy heterosexual sex (e.g., Lavie-Ajayi & Joffe, 2009; Machin & Thornborrow, 2003; Masters & Johnson, 1966; Reich, 1982), framing this attention as increased consideration to women’s sexual needs. As such, media messages on how to give women orgasms, receive them, and make them more frequent, more mind- blowing, and more multiple, are abundant. This seems posi- tive, as it suggests that sexual discourse has successfully shifted from a historically male-centered perspective to one that celebrates pleasure and sexual liberation for women.

Despite increasing focus on women’s orgasms, research indicates that the increased attention to women’s orgasms may also serve men’s sexuality, complicating conceptualizations of women’s orgasms as women-centric (Nicolson & Burr, 2003). For example, men have stated that a woman’s orgasm is one of their most sexually satisfying experiences, describing feelings of

confidence and accomplishment in connection to female partner orgasm occurrence (Braun, Gavey, & McPhillips, 2003; Salisbury & Fisher, 2014). This could further demonstrate posi- tive shifts in sexual discourse by evidencing men’s enthusiastic participation in women’s sexual pleasure, but research points to more self-interested motivations. For instance, heterosexual women have stated that, while they enjoy orgasms, their desire to experience orgasm mainly rests on a concern for their male partner’s feelings and perceptions as a good lover (Lavie & Willig, 2005; Nicolson & Burr, 2003; Salisbury & Fisher, 2014). Studies have also found that many women fake orgasms to please their male partners, highlighting that women some- times prioritize their male partner’s ego over communicating their own sexual desires (Roberts, Kippax, Waldby, & Crawford, 1995). In addition, men have reported that they experience disappointment when their female partner does not orgasm, but state that they would be reluctant to induce a woman’s orgasm with a vibrator because of worries of their own personal inadequacy (Salisbury & Fisher, 2014). Overall, it appears that men may be more concerned about their role in women’s pleasure than they are about women’s pleasure itself. Together, this seems to indicate that although sexuality dis- course has shifted to promote women’s orgasms, it has not shifted from a male-centric perspective.

Given conflicting messaging about women’s orgasms, we are faced with a question: How do women’s orgasms,

Correspondence should be addressed to Sari M. van Anders, University of Michigan, Department of Psychology, 530 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: [email protected]

THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH, 00(00), 1–12, 2017 Copyright © The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality ISSN: 0022-4499 print/1559-8519 online DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2017.1283484

despite being promoted as being for women, play into a sexuality discourse that still prioritizes men? Central to this question are men’s experiences of masculinity, which are strongly informed by men’s sexual scripts (Philaretou & Allen, 2001; Wiederman, 2005). Masculinity, therefore, may set the stage for gendered and not just sexual motiva- tions in sexual contexts, shedding light on men’s demon- strated self-interest in women’s orgasms.

Sexual scripts are internalized cultural guidelines that influence how people interpret, understand, and behave in sexual contexts. They are notably gendered: Men are expected to express masculinity through sexual assertive- ness, control, high sexual desire, and a high number of sexual partners, while women are expected to display fem- ininity through sexual restraint and limitations on sexual access (Gagnon & Simon, 1973; Wiederman, 2005). Typically, sexual scripts have ignored the role of women’s pleasure, as women are portrayed as uninterested in sex (Wiederman, 2005). However, evidence indicates that men’s sexual script is increasingly characterized by profi- cient sexual skill that is defined by an ability to provide women with sexual pleasure and orgasm (Braun et al., 2003; Gilfoyle, Wilson, & Brown, 1992; Potts, 1998, 2000). For example, women’s orgasms are often described as some- thing that results from men’s sexual skill (Potts, 2002), and they are often framed as something that men “give” to women via their sexual proficiency (Gilfoyle et al., 1992). Moreover, both women and men have consistently stated that men are responsible for physically stimulating women to orgasm and that women are responsible for being ready to receive it (Salisbury & Fisher, 2014). Unsurprisingly, this fits into sexual script notions of men “doing” and women “being,” such that even heterosexual women’s orgasms are generally framed as a result of the more agentic gender (i.e., men). Thus, although sexual expectations have perhaps shifted to include women’s pleasure, these narratives of accountability indicate that men’s concern for women’s orgasms may actually align with sexual scripts that continue to prioritize men’s masculinity.

Men may additionally experience pressure to perform sexual script behaviors that buttress their masculinity, lead- ing to further gendered motivations for men’s investment in women’s orgasms. As noted by Vandello, Bosson, Cohen, Burnaford, and Weaver (2008), manhood is precarious; once it is gained, it can easily be lost, Thus, men must constantly “prove” themselves through symbolically masculine achievements. Accordingly, research has evidenced that men perform sexual script behaviors presumably to rein- force perceptions of their masculinity and, moreover, that such behaviors boost men’s self-esteem. For example, a number of scholars have shown that achieving and claiming to have had heterosexual sexual experiences is an important route to status among adolescent male peer groups (Flood, 2008; Holland, Ramazanaglu, & Sharpe, 1994; Kimmel, 1994; Messner, 1992) and that men’s self-esteem increases when they have sexual experiences with a new female partner (Baumeister & Tice, 2001). In addition, one study

showed that men reported the highest rates of masturbation and exposure to pornography only when they thought an experimenter might read their survey responses (Alexander & Fisher, 2003). And, research demonstrates that men generally tend to “round up” their estimate of sexual partners (Brown & Sinclair, 1999; Smith, 1992; Wiederman, 1997, 2005). Furthermore, men also experience masculinity distress when perceptions of their sexual per- formance are challenged, indicating that sexual script demonstrations are particularly important to men’s self-con- cepts. For example, men have reported anxiety about having low sexual desire because they fear it will negatively affect perceptions of their masculinity (McCarthy & Ginsberg, 2008; O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998; Wiederman, 2005). And men exhibit depression when experiences of erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation compromise percep- tions of their sexual competency (Symonds, Roblin, Hart, & Althof, 2003).

Overall, the evidence seems to suggest that women’s orgasms may function as a masculinity achievement for men, explaining some portion of men’s evidenced self- interest in women’s orgasms. Previous studies support this connection (Nicolson & Burr, 2003; Salisbury & Fisher, 2014), but none have explicitly delineated or empirically tested this association. For example, scholars have inferred that absence of women’s orgasms may cause relational difficulties because it puts men’s masculinity at stake (Lavie-Ajayi, 2005); however, the focus usually cen- ters on the potential consequences (e.g., women faking orgasm, men’s decreased self-esteem, women’s concerns about not orgasming as “anorgasmia”) rather than substan- tiating the link between women’s orgasms and men’s masculinity. Thus, although studies have witnessed and recorded a variety of ramifications of the possible connec- tion between women’s orgasms and men’s masculinity, only a few scholars have noted that the increased attention to women’s orgasms has other, rippling implications for gender dynamics in sexual contexts (see Hartley & Tiefer, 2003; Lavie & Willig, 2005; Lavie-Ajayi, 2005).

Current Study

This study aimed to empirically assess the link between women’s orgasms and men’s masculinity. To do this, we developed a novel design to assess how women’s orgasms influence men’s masculinity, the Imagined Orgasm Exercise (IOE), and employed it in an online survey. In the IOE, men imagined scenarios about themselves with a female partner; orgasms were either present or absent, and the partner had either often or rarely experienced past orgasms with pre- vious partners. We then asked men to rate how masculine they would feel (along with a variety of other affect and arousal words) if they experienced the given situation, and we compared men’s self-reports of masculinity in response to the various IOE conditions.

Overall, we predicted that women’s orgasms do function as a masculinity achievement for men and that this

CHADWICK AND VAN ANDERS

2

relationship is influenced by men’s individual differences. We outlined seven hypotheses in our experiment to show this. First, we hypothesized that (hypothesis 1) men would report feeling more masculine when they imagined that a female partner orgasmed with them compared to men who imagined that a female partner did not orgasm. In addition, we expected that the woman’s sexual history would create a basis for social comparison, and we hypothesized that (hypothesis 2) men would feel most masculine in a “major success” situation, that is, where a woman orgasmed with them and had not previously orgasmed with others in the past. We also hypothesized the converse: that (hypothesis 3) a “major failure” condition would elicit the lowest feelings of masculinity in men, where a woman did not orgasm with them but had often orgasmed in the past. Finally, because we hypothesized that feeling masculine functions as an achievement, we hypothesized that (hypothesis 4) the word masculine would be related to constructs tied to success.

The ways that women’s orgasm might function as a masculinity achievement for men might depend on a number of individual differences. For example, beliefs, personality traits, identities, and sexual experience may affect men’s perceptions of women’s sexual pleasure and men’s feelings about their masculine identity. Thus, we also had a number of subhypotheses about the ways that trait variables would impact men’s experiences of the IOE, including the presence of traditional versus egalitar- ian values, men’s level of investment in a sexual partner’s sexual satisfaction, and the degree of masculine gender role stress. Specifically, we hypothesized that (hypothesis 5) traditional versus egalitarian values would influence the degree to which men would feel masculine in response to women’s orgasm presence; but we did not have specific predictions about the direction of effect because there were compelling reasons to believe that traditional or egalitarian values could impact men’s mas- culinity in response to women’s orgasms. We also hypothesized that (hypothesis 6) men’s level of invest- ment in their partner’s sexual satisfaction might function similarly because investment in women’s pleasure could align with traditional or egalitarian approaches to sexual- ity. For instance, traditional views of sexuality strongly align with sexual scripts that position men as sexual agents and women as passive sexual recipients (Wiederman, 2005), suggesting that traditional men might be more motivated to demonstrate masculine sexual behavior and thus experience women’s orgasms as more of a masculinity achievement than egalitarian men, whose feelings of masculinity are perhaps less dependent on such demonstrations. But it could also be the case that men with traditional attitudes do not expect women to orgasm and are therefore not invested in whether a woman’s orgasm occurs. In contrast, men with egalitarian values might resist traditional conceptualizations of mas- culine sexuality that require demonstrations of masculine sexual behaviors, such as “giving” women orgasms, thus

disconnecting women’s orgasm occurrence from their own sense of masculinity. In addition, it may also be the case that men with egalitarian attitudes expect women to want orgasms, positioning women’s orgasms an important to men’s perception of what constitutes a positive sexual encounter. In support, some men believe that their investment in women’s orgasms makes them “enlightened” men, feeling it is their duty to give women as much pleasure as they themselves experience (Gilfoyle et al., 1992). This indicates that egalitarian men’s may be more concerned with women’s orgasms as a demonstration of masculinity, as women’s orgasms signal success as a liberal, egalitarian-minded man.

We also anticipated that men who feel that their mascu- linity is more fragile may be more motivated to prove themselves and gain masculinity achievements, whereas men who feel stable about their masculine identity may be less concerned (see Arrighi & Maume, 2000; Berdahl, 2007; Maass, Cadinu, Guarnieri, & Grasselli, 2003; Theodore & Basow, 2000). Thus, we hypothesized that (hypothesis 7) men who had high masculine gender role stress would feel most masculine in response to situations where the woman orgasmed and least masculine in situa- tions where she did not.

Method

Participants

Analyses included 810 men (M age = 25.44, SD = 8.31) recruited through an introductory psychology participant pool and the community. To be eligible for this study, participants had to identify as a man, be 18 years of age or older, and be currently sexually attracted to women (participants did not have to be heterosexual to participate). We recruited specifically to increase sexual minority repre- sentation through similar advertisements targeted toward non-heterosexual-identified men who were sexually attracted to women. All nonheterosexual participants included in analyses indicated that they were sexually attracted to women, confirming that they met inclusionary criteria (via Kinsey scale responses, reported genders of sexual partners, and/or through qualitative responses). Participants were excluded from analyses if they did not fit the eligibility criteria (n = 10), if they indicated that they had taken the survey more than once (n = 35), or if they indicated that their responses were intended as jokes (n = 7). See Table 1 for demographic characteristics of the participants.

Baseline Measures

Health and Demographics Questionnaire. The health and demographics questionnaire section contained items that asked about participants’ age, education, income level, occupation, race/ethnicity, disability status, and religious beliefs.

WOMEN’S ORGASMS AS A MASCULINITY ACHIEVEMENT

3

Sexuality Questionnaire. The sexuality questionnaire contained items about sexuality, including number of current

and past sexual partners, gender of sexual partners, sexual orientation/identity, sexual experience and fantasies, and masturbation frequency. Sexual activity was defined as contact involving the participant’s or another person’s genitals.

Relationship Questionnaire. The relationship questionn- aire contained items about romantic relationships, including relationship status, number of relationship partners, divorce status, and relationship satisfaction.

Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Role Scale (Sample α = .91). The Traditional-Egalitarian Sex Role scale (TESR; Larsen & Long, 1988) is a Likert-type scale that measures participants’ attitudes toward egalitarian- traditional sex roles. Participants are asked to rate the extent to which they agree or disagree with a series of statements (e.g., “Women should have as much sexual freedom as men”) using a 6-point Likert-type scale with 1 indicating Strongly disagree and 6 indicating Strongly agree. Higher scores indicate more egalitarian values; lower scores indicate more traditional values.

Sexual Relationship Scale. The Sexual Relationship Scale (SRS; Hughes & Snell, 1990) measures communal and exchange approaches to sexual relationships, which we used to indicate level of investment in a partner’s sexual pleasure. Individuals who take a communal approach feel responsible for and involved in their partner’s satisfaction and welfare. Individuals with an exchange approach to sexual relations are characterized as being interested in their partner’s sexual pleasure only to receive reciprocated sexual favors. Participants are given a list of communal and exchange-oriented statements (e.g., “When I make love with someone I generally expect something in return”; “If I were to make love with a sexual partner, I’d take that person’s needs and feelings into account”) and asked to rate on a 5-point scale how much the statement applies to them. A rating of 1 indicated that the statement is Not at all characteristic of them and 5 indicated that the statement is Very characteristic of them. Scale calculation results in two subscale scores: one for communal approach (sample α = .77) and one for exchange approach (sample α = .69). Higher scores on each indicate a higher communal or exchange approach, respectively.

Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (Sample α = .91). The Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRS; Eisler & Skidmore, 1987) measures the degree to which certain gender-role-related situations would be stressful for men, including a variety of cognitive, behavioral, and environmental events associated with the male gender role (e.g., being outperformed at work by a woman). The specific domains assessed by this scale are (a) physical inadequacy; (b) emotional inexpressiveness; (c) subordination to women; (d) feeling intellectually

Table 1. Participant Characteristics

Demographic N (%)

Age 810 18–24 444 (54.8) 25–34 294 (36.3) 35–44 33 (4.1) 45–54 20 (2.5) 55–64 15 (1.9) 65–72 4 (0.5)

Recruitment source 810 Subject pool (introductory psychology course) 102 (12.6) Community (office of the registrar random e-mail sampling, Craigslist, Facebook, Reddit)

708 (87.4)

Occupation status 810 Student only 244 (30.1) Student and employed (part or full time) 289 (35.7) Employed nonstudent 236 (29.1) Unemployed nonstudent 41 (5.1)

Currently living in the United States 809 Yes 773 (95.4) No 36 (4.4)

Race/ethnicity/nationa 810 Caucasian/White 578 (71.4) Multiracial 38 (4.7) European 28 (3.5) African American/Black 24 (3.0) Asian/Asian American 22 (2.7) Indian 22 (2.7) Hispanic/Latino 16 (2.0) South/Southeast Asian 14 (1.7) East Asian (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Korean) 14 (1.7) Middle Eastern 12 (1.5) Mexican/Mexican American 7 (0.9) Australian/New Zealander 4 (0.5) Native American 3 (0.4) No response 28 (1.1)

Sexual orientation/identitya 810 Heterosexual/straight 651 (80.4) Bisexual 124 (15.3) Pansexual 11 (1.4) Heteroflexible/bicurious 9 (1.1) Queer 9 (1.1) Gay 4 (0.5) Polysexual 1 (0.1) Unlabeled nonheterosexual 1 (0.1)

Relationship status 808 Single (no sexual or romantic contacts) 215 (26.6) Single (no relationships, some sexual contacts) 148 (18.3) Dating 75 (9.3) Committed relationship 224 (27.7) Married/common law/life partnership 125 (15.5) Other 21 (2.6)

Sexual experienceb 809 Yes (women only) 597 (74.2) Yes (women and other genders) 101 (12.5) Yes (men only) 11 (1.4) No (no sexual partners) 96 (11.9)

aCategories were created by the authors based on participants’ self-identi- fication in response to an open-ended item. bDefined as contact with another person involving the participant’s or the other person’s genitals.

CHADWICK AND VAN ANDERS

4

inferior; and (e) performance failures in work or sex. Participants are asked to rate on a 5-point scale how stressful they would find a series of situations, with 1 indicating Not at all stressful and 5 indicating Extremely stressful. Higher scores on the MGRS indicate higher anticipated stress for situations that challenge male gender roles.

Experimental Manipulation

Imagined Orgasm Exercise (IOE). Participants were randomly assigned to read one of four vignettes in which participants imagine a sexual experience with an attractive female partner that they like very much with whom they have had sex three times already; these parameters were set to establish a situation in which men might be more invested than a one-night stand but still unaccustomed to their sexual compatibility with the woman. The vignettes also specified the female partner’s orgasm history with previous partners to differentiate each condition as a major versus minor success or a major versus minor failure. The IOE had four conditions phrased similarly, from a 2 (orgasm presence: present versus absent) × 2 (orgasm history: often versus rarely) design: (1) “major success”—the participant imagined that the female partner always had an orgasm during sex with him after being told that she rarely orgasmed with previous partners; (2) “minor success”—the participant imagined that the female partner always had an orgasm during sex with him after being told that she often orgasmed with previous partners; (3) “minor failure”—the participant imagined that the female partner had not had an orgasm during sex with him after being told that she rarely orgasmed with previous partners; (4) “major failure”—the participant imagined that the female partner had not had an orgasm during sex with him after being told she often orgasmed with previous partners. Arguably, this format has high face validity, since we asked participants to imagine a situation that is both possible and plausible; moreover, participants were able to respond to the situation.

Dependent Variables1

Affect and Arousal Scale. The Affect and Arousal Scale (AAS; Heiman & Rowland, 1983) was designed to assess state affect and arousal in studies of subjective and genital sexual arousal. We used it to assess affect and arousal after the manipulation. We modified the AAS to include words associated with success and failure and to remove words irrelevant to our hypotheses; we have adapted this scale successfully in the past (Goldey & van Anders, 2011, 2012; Ritchie & van Anders, 2015; van Anders, Tolman, & Volling, 2012). Specifically, we included the words masculine and feminine to assess feelings of masculinity and femininity and to test whether the “masculine” item grouped with other items related to

success. The AAS included a total of 36 words. Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale the extent that they would feel the listed emotion if they experienced the situation outlined in the vignette. The scale was anchored with 1 = Very slightly or not at all and 5 = Extremely. The modified AAS scale resolved into four subscales after exploratory factor analysis: accomplishment (e.g., successful, content), negative affect (e.g., ashamed, distressed), focused (e.g., attentive, determined), and lack of concern (e.g., bored, uninterested). All AAS factors exhibited internal consistency (all αs ≥ .70) and had eigenvalues greater than 1.

The Sexuality Scale. The Sexuality Scale (SS; Snell & Papini, 1989) measures participants’ sexual esteem, depression, and sexual preoccupation. The sexual preoccupation subscale was excluded from this study because it was unrelated to our hypotheses. Participants were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert-type scale the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about how they would feel if they experienced the imagined vignette situation (e.g., “I would rate myself as a good sexual partner”), with 1 indicating Agree and 5 indicating Disagree. Scale calculation resulted in two subscale scores: one for sexual esteem (sample α = .95) and one for sexual depression (sample α = .91).

In the current study, sexual esteem and sexual depres- sion scores were significantly and highly negatively corre- lated, r (1, 796) = −.841, p < .001, indicating that they were measuring the same construct; we thus combined them to create a single measure (sexual esteem/depression [SED]; sample α = .96) with high scores indicating higher sexual esteem and low scores indicating higher sexual depression. We conducted analyses on the sexual esteem and sexual depression scores separately and then as one construct, and the pattern of results was the same; thus, we used the combined SED measure to reduce the number of analyses.

Exclusion Questions. To confirm that the study questions were answered seriously, participants were asked to indicate if they were joking when they responded to any of the survey items. Participants were also asked to indicate how many times they completed the survey as a way to screen for multiple attempts at participation. Data from participants who indicated that they were joking or that they took the survey more than once were removed before beginning any assessment.

Procedure

Approval for this study was obtained from the University of Michigan institutional review board (IRB). Online recruitment advertisements and the introductory subject pool website directed participants to follow a survey link where they consented to study participation.

WOMEN’S ORGASMS AS A MASCULINITY ACHIEVEMENT

5

Participants then completed a short screening question to determine their eligibility for study involvement. Once participants were deemed eligible, they completed the online survey, which first asked about health and demo- graphics. Participants subsequently filled out the relation- ship and sexuality questionnaires, the SRS, the MGRS, and the TESR. Next, participants completed the IOE. Immediately following the IOE, participants filled out the AAS and the SS. Participants also filled out the measures described the Notes section. To complete parti- cipation in this study, participants answered forced- response questions regarding the number of times they took the survey and whether their answers included joke responses. Subject participation was compensated through entry into a raffle to win one of four $50 Amazon.com gift certificates. E-mail addresses were separated from participant responses to ensure anonymity.

Analyses

Analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) Version 23.0. Self-reported feelings of masculinity and femininity were assessed through responses to the AAS, which instructed partici- pants to indicate the extent that they would feel a series of listed emotions, including “masculine” and “feminine.” Age was significantly correlated with masculinity, r (1,794) = .10, p = .004; thus, we ran all analyses control- ling and not controlling for age to evaluate if there were differing patterns of results. There were no differences; thus, we reported results not controlling for age. We also conducted analyses to assess whether the pattern of results differed based on men’s sexual experiences (e.g., genders and number of sexual partners) and we found that it did not; thus, we reported results not controlling for sexual experiences.

Hypotheses 1 through 3. To test effects of orgasm pre- sence and orgasm history on men’s self-reported feelings of masculinity, we conducted two-way analyses of var- iance (ANOVAs). We also examined effects on feminin- ity to establish the divergent validity of our experiment (i.e., that masculinity, but not gender in general, was affected) and SED to assess the convergent validity of our experiment (i.e., that men’s sexual esteem, which is theoretically connected to men’s masculinity, was affected). Hypothesis 4. To assess whether the word masculine loaded

on a construct related to achievement (e.g., feelings of success, accomplishment, pride), we used an exploratory factor analysis (EFA).

Hypotheses 5 through 7. To assess whether traditional ver- sus egalitarian values (using the TESR), level of investment in partner’s sexual pleasure (using the SRS to assess com- munal/exchange approaches to sexual relations), and/or masculine gender role stress (using the MGRS) moderated

the effect of women’s orgasm presence or absence on men’s feelings of masculinity, we conducted moderation tests using the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013).

Results

Do Women’s Orgasms Influence Men’s Masculinity?

Effect of IOE Condition on Masculinity (see Figure 1). Results supported hypothesis 1, which proposed that success conditions would lead to the highest masculinity scores. We conducted a two-way ANOVA to compare the main effects and interaction effect of orgasm presence (present versus absent) and orgasm history (often versus rarely) on masculinity. We found that men reported higher feelings of masculinity after reading a vignette in which a female partner orgasmed versus a vignette in which a female partner did not orgasm (p < .001); that is, there was a significant main effect of orgasm presence, F (1, 790) = 368.54, 95% CI [−1.72, −1.25], p < .001, η2p = .32. There was also a significant main effect of orgasm history, F (1, 790) = 8.00, 95% CI [.09, .55], p = .02, η2p = .01, such that men reported higher feelings of masculinity after reading that a woman had rarely orgasmed in the past versus often orgasmed in the past. However, hypotheses 2 and 3 were not supported; the effect size for orgasm history, η2p = .01, was “small” per Cohen (1988), leading us to conclude that orgasm history was noninfluential despite reaching statistical significance. Thus, in the subsequent results for masculinity, we compared the effects of the orgasm presence levels (present versus absent). There was no significant interaction between orgasm presence and orgasm history, F (1, 790) = 2.03, 95% CI [−.57, .09], p = .16.

Divergent Validity: Effects of IOE Condition on Femininity. To ensure that vignettes specifically influenced masculinity, rather than feelings of gender in general or masculinity and femininity, we asked men to rate the extent to which they would feel feminine if they experienced the vignette situation. A two-way ANOVA showed that femininity scores did not significantly differ between IOE conditions and were all equally low (Ms = .24 to .28, SDs = .63 to .68), ps = n.s. This showed that the effect was specific to masculinity, per our predictions.

Convergent Validity: Effect of IOE Condition on SED (see Figure 2). Research indicates that men’s investment in women’s orgasms connects to men’s perceptions of themselves as a good lover (Nicolson & Burr, 2003), suggesting that IOE effects on SED scores should parallel findings with masculinity. Results supported this, confirming that the IOE conditions successfully manipulated the expected constructs: First, there was a significant positive correlation between SED scores and masculinity, r (785) = .63, p < .001. In addition, results for the two-way ANOVAwere similar to masculinity results: Imagining

CHADWICK AND VAN ANDERS

6

a female partner orgasming led to significantly higher sexual esteem scores in men compared to imagining a female partner not orgasming, F (1, 788) = 843.35, 95% CI [−9.21, −7.69], p < .001, η2p = .52. There was a significant main effect of orgasm history, F (1, 788) = 474.94, 95% CI [.33, 1.85], p < .001, η2p = .04, such that men had higher sexual esteem when asked to imagine that their female partner had rarely orgasmed in the past with previous partners versus often orgasmed in the past with previous partners. There was no significant interaction between orgasm presence and orgasm history on SED, F (1, 788) = 2.77, 95% CI [−.17, 2.00], p = .10.

Although there was a significant main effect of orgasm history, it once again was a small effect size as per Cohen (1988), η2p = .04, and thus noninfluential. Overall, the results suggest that men feel higher sexual esteem after a woman orgasms with them than when she does not, and that these effects parallel those with masculinity.

Is Feeling Masculine Related to Feelings of Achievement?

Results supported hypothesis 4; the item “masculine” from the AAS loaded onto the accomplishment factor, which is characterized by items associated with achievement (e.g., successful, skilled, fulfilled).

EFA with maximum likelihood extraction (MLE) was chosen as the appropriate factor analysis because we theorized themes of success and failure as underlying structures to the 36 AAS items. The analysis was con- ducted using 783 participants who completed at least 95% of the AAS, ensuring that no variable had more than 1% missing data. Because there were minimal missing data points, we imputed values using expectation maximiza- tion, ensuring a complete data set on which to run the EFA, as per Tabachnick and Fidell (2013). Analyses run on the data with missing values and data with imputed values produced the same pattern of results; thus imputed values were retained. We used an Oblimin rotation with

Kaiser normalization because we hypothesized that item groupings for orgasm-present conditions would be nega- tively correlated with item groupings for orgasm-absent conditions. Two empirical evaluations showed that the AAS was appropriate for EFA: The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin (KMO) was .97 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was sig- nificant, X2 (630) = 21962.21, p < .001. The AAS resolved into four factors: The accomplishment factor (M = 1.77, SD = 1.27) consisted of 11 items (e.g., successful, content), explained 39.23% of the variance, had an eigenvalue of 14.12, and was internally consistent (α = .96); the negative affect factor (M = .76, SD = .85) consisted of 15 items (e.g., ashamed, distressed), explained 15.74% of the variance, had an eigenvalue of 5.66, and was internally consistent (α = .95); the focus factor (M = 1.92, SD = 1.00) consisted of four items (e.g., attentive, determined), explained 6.07% of the variance, had an eigenvalue of 2.19, and was internally consistent (α = .75); and, the lack of concern factor (M = 0.34, SD = .55) consisted of six items (e.g., indifferent, apa- thetic), explained 3.88% of the variance, had an eigenva- lue of 1.40, and was internally consistent (α = .71). Accomplishment was significantly negatively correlated with negative affect, r = −.54, p < .001, and lack of concern, r = −.13, p < .001, and significantly positively correlated with focus, r = .32, p < .001. Negative affect was significantly positively correlated with focus, r = .11, p = .003, and lack of concern, r = .38, p < .001. Focus and lack of concern were not significantly correlated, r = .03, p = .46.

Do Individual Traits Influence Masculinity Responses to Women’s Orgasms?

Traditional versus Egalitarian Values. Having more traditional or egalitarian values did not significantly moderate the effect of orgasm presence on masculinity,

Figure 2. Effect of the Imagined Orgasm Exercise (IOE) on sexual esteem/depression (SED) scores, with standard error bars; * indicates sig- nificant mean difference in masculinity scores between absent and present IOE conditions at p < .001, partial eta squared = .52.

Figure 1. Effect of the Imagined Orgasm Exercise (IOE) on mean mas- culinity scores, with standard error bars; * indicates a significant mean difference in masculinity scores between absent and present IOE conditions at p < .001, partial eta squared = .32.

WOMEN’S ORGASMS AS A MASCULINITY ACHIEVEMENT

7

F (1, 749) = .87, p = .35; thus, hypothesis 5 was not supported. However, there was a main effect of orgasm presence on masculinity: Men who imagined that a female partner orgasmed reported higher overall masculinity than men who imagined that a female partner did not orgasm, b = 1.62, SEb = .09, t (749) = 19.04, 95% CI [1.45, 1.79], p < .001. Having more traditional or egalitarian values also had a significant main effect on masculinity: Men with higher traditional values reported higher overall masculinity than men with higher egalitarian values, b = −.01, SEb = .003, t (749) = −3.98, 95% CI [−.02, −.01], p < .001.

Investment in Partner Pleasure via Communal/ Exchange Approaches to Sexual Relations. Men with a communal approach to sex are characterized by an investment in their partner’s sexual pleasure and satisfaction, whereas men with an exchange approach to sex are characterized as being interested in their partner’s sexual pleasure only to receive reciprocated sexual favors. We explored hypothesis 6 using scores from the SRS in an additive multiple moderation test to examine whether having a communal and/or exchange approach moderated the relationship between women’s orgasms and masculinity. Hypothesis 6 was not supported; moderation results were not significant for communal scores, ΔR2 = .001, F (1, 761) = 1.55, p = .21, exchange scores, ΔR2 = .001, F (1, 761) = 1.45, p = .23, or communal and exchange scores combined, ΔR2 = .003, F (2, 761) = 1.69, p = .19; thus, the SRS did not moderate the association. There were significant main effects of communal and exchange scores such that higher scores on each were associated with higher masculinity, communal b = .02, SEb = .009, t (761) = 2.59, 95% CI [.005, .04], p = .01; exchange b = .02, SEb = .01, t (761) = 3.05, 95% CI [.008, .04], p = .002.

Masculine Gender Role Stress (see Figure 3). Supporting hypothesis 7, there was a statistically significant moderator effect of MGRS on the relationship between orgasm presence and masculinity, ΔR2 = .03, F (1, 731) = 30.01, 95% CI [.06, .03], p < .001; high-MGRS men reported stronger feelings of masculinity in response to a woman’s orgasm and weaker feelings of masculinity in response to lack of a woman’s orgasm than low-MGRS men. Results indicated that imagining that a female partner orgasmed, b = 1.58, SEb = .08, t (731) = 18.87, 95% CI [1.42, 1.74], p < .001, and greater MGRS, b = .01, SEb = .002, t (731) = 3.84, 95% CI [.004, .01], p < .001, were both associated with higher feelings of masculinity, and the interaction between orgasm presence and MGRS on masculinity was significant, b = .02, SEb = .004, t (731) = 5.48, 95% CI [.02, .03], p < .001.

We tested the simple slopes for the association between orgasm presence and masculinity for low (−1 SD below the mean), moderate (mean), and high (+1 SD above the mean) levels of MGRS. Each of the simple slopes tests revealed a significant positive association between orgasm presence (dichotomous code: absent = 0, present = 1) and masculi- nity, but orgasm presence was more strongly related to masculinity for high levels of MGRS, b = 2.04, SEb = .19, t (731) = 17.20, 95% CI [1.81, 2.28], p < .001, than for moderate, b = 1.58, SEb = .08, t (731) = 18.87, 95% CI [1.42, 1.75], p < .001, or low levels, b = 1.12, SEb = .19, t (731) = 9.45, 95% CI [.89, 1.35], p < .001. (See Figure 3.) Therefore, although all men experienced higher feelings of masculinity after imagining that a partner orgasmed and lower feelings of masculinity after imagining that a partner did not, this was especially pronounced for men with high MGRS.

Figure 3. Masculine Gender Role Stress (MGRS) significantly moderated the effect of orgasm presence on mean masculinity scores at p < .001, with standard error bars.

CHADWICK AND VAN ANDERS

8

Discussion

We investigated the association between women’s orgasms and men’s masculinity. To do this, we assigned men to one of four conditions in which men were asked to imagine that a female partner either does or does not orgasm with them after revealing a history of rarely or often orgasming with previous partners. Men then rated how masculine they would feel in the given situation, among other words connected to success and failure.

Women’s Orgasms Function as a Masculinity Achievement for Men

Overall, the pattern of results supports that women’s orgasms function as a masculinity achievement for men. Across the measured trait variables (e.g., traditional ver- sus egalitarian values, investment in partner’s sexual pleasure, and masculine gender role stress), men felt most masculine after imagining that a female partner orgasmed with them versus imagining that she did not. Tellingly, this effect was exacerbated for men with high masculine gender role stress. In addition, the word mas- culine loaded onto a factor characterized by accomplish- ment, highlighting that masculine feelings operate as an achievement.

Feeling Masculine in Response to Women’s Orgasms

Results supported our first hypothesis, that men would feel more masculine after imagining that a female partner orgasmed with them versus imagining that she did not. However, results did not support (or only weakly supported) our second and third hypotheses, that a woman’s sexual history would elicit stronger or weaker feelings of masculi- nity. Although men did feel more masculine after imagining their female partner rarely orgasmed in the past, this effect was small and statistically judged as noninfluential despite reaching conventional levels of significance.

Clearly, imagining women’s current orgasms influenced men’s feelings of masculinity, but women’s orgasm history could be less important. This aligns with narratives that credit men for heterosexual women’s orgasms, implying that women’s orgasms are the male partner’s responsibility regardless of a woman’s previous experiences. This could have positive repercussions. For example, men might be motivated to attend to women’s pleasure with zeal, no matter the circumstance, because their own sexual skill is perceived as the most important element in women’s experi- ences of sexual pleasure. Conversely, there may be negative repercussions. Men may dismiss important contextual fac- tors and/or women’s own agency and experiences around sexual pleasure. For example, if men will not hear a woman’s insistence that she does not orgasm, does not want to try to orgasm, or orgasms only via nonpartnered

stimulation (e.g., self-stimulation or toys), they may experi- ence the absence of women’s orgasms as a personal failure or even a challenge.

Trait Variables Influence Effects of Women’s Orgasms on Men’s Masculinity

Our general prediction was that women’s orgasms func- tion as a masculinity achievement for men, but we also offered subhypotheses for how selected trait variables would influence this link, which received partial support. Results did not support our fifth and sixth hypotheses, that traditional versus egalitarian values and/or investment in a partner’s pleasure would influence men’s masculinity responses to women’s orgasm presence. We had anticipated that traditional men might see women’s orgasms as more of a masculinity achievement compared to egalitarian men because of their more traditional expectations for masculine sexuality, or that they might not care about women’s plea- sure generally and would therefore be unconcerned if an orgasm did or did not occur. Alternatively, we anticipated that egalitarian men might not link women’s orgasms to their own masculinity, or they might see women’s orgasms as more of a masculinity achievement than traditional men because of the importance of women’s orgasms to more liberal forms of masculinity. It may be the case that men with either set of values experience women’s orgasm as a masculinity achievement; that is, although traditional and egalitarian perspectives frame women’s orgasms differently, both framings may equally position women’s orgasms as an important symbol of men’s masculine sexual behavior. This may explain why men felt more masculine after imagining that a woman orgasmed regardless of their traditional values, egalitarian values, communal approaches, or exchange approaches to sexual relations. Accordingly, tradi- tional and egalitarian values or men’s investment in a part- ner’s pleasure may influence the motivations for viewing women’s orgasms as masculinity achievements for men rather than the existence of the phenomenon itself.

Masculine gender role stress was significantly influential, supporting our seventh hypothesis: High-stress men felt more masculine when a woman orgasmed and less mascu- line when she did not compared to low-stress men. Men with high masculine gender role stress may experience fragile masculinity, that is, a heightened sensitivity to poten- tial masculinity buttresses or threats because of a sense of precariousness or risk around masculinity. Thus, for high- stress men, women’s orgasm presence or absence might be experienced as especially validating or distressing, intensi- fying feelings of masculinity achievement or failure, as evidenced by our results.

There is also the possibility that the MGRS scale itself acted as a masculinity threat, with high scores correspond- ing with participants’ actual stress upon imagining situations that challenge masculine gender roles. Research has shown that men who feel their masculinity is threatened may be

WOMEN’S ORGASMS AS A MASCULINITY ACHIEVEMENT

9

more motivated to reassert their masculine status (Vandello et al., 2008; Willer, Rogalin, Conlon, & Wojnowicz, 2013); thus, imagining that a woman orgasmed could then function as an especially strong, reasserting masculinity achieve- ment, and imagining that a woman did not could make them feel even less masculine. Although it is unclear whether the MGRS acted as a baseline measure or a mas- culinity threat, the results supported the same conclusion: Women’s orgasms function as a masculinity achievement for men, and this effect is pronounced for men with high masculine gender role stress.

Implications

Although women’s orgasms may not be as women-cen- tric as one might hope within a sex-positive framework, the link between women’s orgasms and men’s masculinity could have some positive effects. Certainly, many men who experience women’s orgasms as a masculinity achieve- ment may also be genuinely invested in women’s pleasure. And men’s self-interest in women’s orgasms could result in women experiencing more orgasms generally, compared to beliefs that women are uninterested in orgasms or unable to experience pleasure, or that women’s pleasure is unimpor- tant in any way.

In some heterosexual encounters, this may be the case; however, research has suggested that the increased expecta- tions for women’s orgasms actually has a variety of negative effects, one of the most serious being related to bodily integrity and medicalization (Gilfoyle et al., 1992; Hartley & Tiefer, 2003). Specifically, scholars have suggested that increased attention to women’s orgasms decreases women’s perceptions of sexual fulfillment by suggesting that women are missing out on “good” sex when they do not have an orgasm (Hartley & Tiefer, 2003; Lavie & Willig, 2005; Lavie-Ajayi & Joffe, 2009). Lavie-Ajayi and Joffe (2009) have argued that this social representation of orgasm as a symbol of women’s sexual health has created space for biomedical health “problems” when orgasm does not hap- pen. The link between women’s orgasms and men’s mascu- linity supports this by suggesting how women’s and men’s desire to maintain men’s feelings of masculinity could prompt medical misattributions of unfulfilled orgasm expec- tations, namely, when the absence of women’s orgasm is treated by both male and female partners as a clinical problem leading to medical diagnoses of dysfunction and disorder (Lavie-Ajayi & Joffe, 2009). For example, when women’s orgasms become an arena for men’s masculinity achievement, the absence of those orgasms means either a “failure” of men’s skill or of women’s bodies (among other possibilities); and given the need to shore up masculinity, men (and women) may attribute absence of orgasm to women’s bodies. Supporting this, women who seek medical consultation for their own orgasm problems have described their concerns as stemming from their male partner’s feel- ings of sexual inadequacy (Lavie-Ajayi & Joffe, 2009), indicating that women’s “failure” to orgasm may be

interpreted as a biomedical problem with their bodies, rather than as an issue of compatibility or male skill. And although the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) requires medical professionals to consider interpersonal contextual factors and inadequate sexual stimulation before making a diagnosis of “female orgasmic disorder,” it could be that women do not report such contextual or stimulation factors because this would undermine their male partner’s masculinity.

Empirically demonstrating a link between women’s orgasms and men’s masculinity also has important impli- cations for conceptualizations of women’s sexual libera- tion, among others. For example, our results could be interpreted to support the notion that the increased atten- tion to women’s orgasms, often lauded as the symbol of women’s sexual liberation, actually reflects a repackaging of women’s sexuality in the service of men. In this way, updated sexual scripts delineating that men should give orgasms to women still invoke continued traditional notions of men as assertive sexual agents and women as passive sexual recipients, and this positions women’s orgasms in a way that continues to prioritize men’s needs over women’s pleasure. In support, research demonstrates that women fake orgasms to please their male partner (Hite, 1976; Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010; Schaefer, 1973), suggesting that a desire to preserve a man’s ego often trumps a woman’s ability to honestly communicate her experience (Roberts et al., 1995). And research has also shown that women are often hesitant to suggest improvements or changes in a male partner’s technique because they feel it would devastate his self-esteem (Salisbury & Fisher, 2014). Thus, our findings support scholars (largely feminist) who suggest that a reevaluation of women’s orgasms as symbols of sexual health and liberation is sorely needed (Hartley & Tiefer, 2003).

Limitations and Future Directions

There are many unanswered questions about links between women’s orgasms and men’s masculinity, includ- ing myriad additional personality and contextual factors. For example, although we assessed a variety of trait vari- ables, a number of others may be important, including sexual experiences, relationship status, and compatibility with specific partners. Our vignettes outlined a specific situation that may or may not represent the variety of experiences across and within participants. Accordingly, future research might address how differing contextual factors (e.g., hookups, relationships,) affect men’s mascu- linity responses to women’s orgasm presence and absence. In addition, our results represent anticipated feelings, as vignettes asked men to imagine that they had experienced the given situation; it would be useful to assess men’s actual reactions to current and/or past real experiences. Finally, our sample was largely young, heterosexual, and White; therefore, our results may reflect a kind of

CHADWICK AND VAN ANDERS

10

masculinity specific to men in socially dominant positions. It would be fruitful to investigate how men of diverse social identities (e.g., race, culture, class) experience women’s orgasms in connection to their masculinity.

Overall, we hope that the findings of this study highlight the nuanced repercussions of gendered motivations in sex- ual encounters between women and men and the double- edged implications of rhetoric about prioritizing women’s sexual pleasure.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Z. Schudson, E. Dibble, J. Rabinowitz, T. Conley, L. Cortina, N. Hubbs, and all members of the van Anders laboratory.

Note 1 For the purposes of full reporting, we note that we included the

Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory—46 (CMNI-46; Parent & Moradi, 2011) in the study. However, a surprising number of participants in the study reported that they found its wording confus- ing (n = 47). In addition, we counterbalanced its presentation to before and after the IOE (to determine whether it was influenced by condi- tion), but premanipulation IOE scores differed in random ways. Perhaps for these reasons—participant difficulty and order—results with the CMNI-46 were strikingly less clear than the single-item measure of masculinity, so we do not include further reports of the CMNI-46 in this article. In addition, participants’ attributions for the vignette situation were obtained via items asking men to rate how much they felt the situation was due to their own sexual skill, their female partner’s sexual skill, their own body, their female partner’s body, and/or the sexual compatibility between themselves and the female partner. Participants were also asked about feminist identifica- tion through a single question: “Do you identify as a feminist?” Response options were Yes, No, or Not sure/Undecided. The attribu- tion and feminist identification questions were unrelated to our hypotheses for this study and are not further discussed.

References

Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self‐reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 27–35. doi:10.1080/00224490309552164

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical man- ual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Arrighi, B. A., & Maume, D. J. (2000). Workplace subordination and men’s avoidance of housework. Journal of Family Issues, 21(4), 464–487. doi:10.1177/019251300021004003

Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (2001). The social dimension of sex. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Berdahl, J. L. (2007). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 641–658. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.24351879

Braun, V., Gavey, N., & McPhillips, K. (2003). The “fair deal”? Unpacking accounts of reciprocity in heterosex. Sexualities, 6(2), 237–261. doi:10.1177/1363460703006002005

Brown, N. R., & Sinclair, R. C. (1999). Estimating number of lifetime sexual partners: Men and women do it differently. Journal of Sex Research, 36(3), 292–297. doi:10.1080/00224499909551999

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.

Eisler, R. M., & Skidmore, J. R. (1987). Masculine Gender Role Stress: Scale development and component factors in the appraisal of stressful situations. Behavior Modification, 11(2), 123–136. doi:10.1177/01454455870112001

Flood, M. (2008). Men, sex, and homosociality: How bonds between men shape their sexual relations with women. Men and Masculinities, 10 (3), 339–359. doi:10.1177/1097184X06287761

Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social origins of human sexuality. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Gilfoyle, J., Wilson, J., & Brown. (1992). Sex, organs, and audiotape: A discourse analytic approach to talking about heterosexual sex and relationships. Feminism and Psychology, 2(2), 209–230. doi:10.1177/ 095935359222010

Goldey, K. L., & van Anders, S. M. (2011). Sexy thoughts: Effects of sexual cognitions on testosterone, cortisol, and arousal in women. Hormones and Behavior, 59(5), 754–764. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.12.005

Goldey, K. L., & van Anders, S. M. (2012). Sexual arousal and desire: Interrelations and responses to three modalities of sexual stimuli. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9(9), 2315–2329. doi:10.1111/j.1743- 6109.2012.02845.x

Hartley, H., & Tiefer, L. (2003). Taking a biological turn: The push for a “female Viagra” and the medicalization of women’s sexual problems. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 31(1/2), 42–54. Retrieved from http:// www.jstor.org/stable/40004551

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and condi- tional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Heiman, J. R., & Rowland, D. L. (1983). Affective and physiological sexual response patterns: The effects of instructions on sexually functional and dysfunctional men. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 27(2), 105–116. doi:10.1016/0022-3999(83)90086-7

Hite, S. (1976). The Hite report. New York, NY: Macmillan. Holland, J., Ramazanaglu, C., & Sharpe, S. (1994). Wimp or gladiator:

Contradictions in acquiring masculine sexuality. London, United Kingdom: Tufnell.

Hughes, T. G., & Snell, W. E. (1990). Communal and exchange approaches to sexual relations. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 3(2), 149–163. doi:10.1007/BF00850867

Kimmel, M. S. (1994). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities (pp. 119–141). London, United Kingdom: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781452243627.n7

Larsen, K. S., & Long, E. (1988). Attitudes toward sex-roles: Traditional or egalitarian? Sex Roles, 19(1–2), 1–12. doi:10.1007/BF00292459

Lavie, M., & Willig, C. (2005). “I don’t feel like melting butter”: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the experience of “inor- gasmia.” Psychology and Health, 20(1), 115–128. doi:10.1080/ 08870440412331296044

Lavie-Ajayi, M. (2005). “Because all real women do”: The construction and deconstruction of “female orgasmic disorder.” Sexualities, Evolution, and Gender, 7(1), 57–72. doi:10.1080/14616660500123664

Lavie-Ajayi, M., & Joffe, H. (2009). Social representations of female orgasm. Journal of Health Psychology, 14(1), 98–107. doi:10.1177/ 1359105308097950

Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 853. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.853

Machin, D., & Thornborrow, J. (2003). Branding and discourse: The case of cosmopolitan. Discourse and Society, 14(4), 453–471. doi:10.1177/ 0957926503014004003

Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. A. (1966). Human sexual response. Boston, MA: Little Brown.

McCarthy, B., & Ginsberg, R. L. (2008). Male hypoactive sexual desire disorder: A conceptual model and case study. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 18(4), 29–42. doi:10.1300/J085v18n04_03

WOMEN’S ORGASMS AS A MASCULINITY ACHIEVEMENT

11

Messner, M. A. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of mascu- linity. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Muehlenhard, C. L., & Shippee, S. K. (2010). Men’s and women’s reports of pretending orgasm. Journal of Sex Research, 47(6), 552–567. doi:10.1080/00224490903171794

Nicolson, P., & Burr, J. (2003). What is “normal” about women’s (hetero) sexual desire and orgasm? A report of an in-depth interview study. Social Science and Medicine, 57(9), 1735–1745. doi:10.1016/S0277- 9536(03)00012-1

Opperman, E., Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Rogers, C. (2014). “It feels so good it almost hurts”: Young adults’ experiences of orgasm and sexual pleasure. Journal of Sex Research, 51(5), 503–515. doi:10.1080/ 00224499.2012.753982

O’Sullivan, L. F., & Allgeier, E. R. (1998). Feigning sexual desire: Consenting to unwanted sexual activity in heterosexual dating rela- tionships. Journal of Sex Research, 35(3), 234–243. doi:10.1080/ 00224499809551938

Parent, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2011). An abbreviated tool for assessing conformity to masculine norms: Psychometric properties of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 12(4), 339–353. doi:10.1037/a0021904

Philaretou, A. G., & Allen, K. R. (2001). Reconstructing masculinity and sexuality. Journal of Men’s Studies, 9(3), 301–321. doi:10.3149/ jms.0903.301

Potts, A. (1998). The science/fiction of sex: John Gray’s Mars and Venus in the Bedroom. Sexualities, 1(2), 153–173. doi:10.1177/1363460980010 02002

Potts, A. (2000). Coming, coming, gone: A feminist deconstruction of heterosexual orgasm. Sexualities, 3(1), 55–76. doi:10.1177/ 136346000003001003

Potts, A. (2002). The science/fiction of sex: Feminist deconstruction and the vocabularies of heterosex. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Reich, W. (1982). Excerpts from The Function of the Orgasm. In M. Brake (Ed.), Human sexual relations: Towards a redefinition of sexual politics (pp. 70–71). New York: Pantheon Books.

Ritchie, L. L., & van Anders, S. M. (2015). There’s jealousy … and then there’s jealousy: Differential effects of jealousy on testosterone. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 1(2), 231–246. doi:10.1007/s40750-015-0023-7

Roberts, C., Kippax, S., Waldby, C., & Crawford, J. (1995). Faking it: The story of “Ohh!” Women’s Studies International Forum, 18(5/6), 523–532. doi:10.1016/0277-5395(95)80090-C

Salisbury, C. M., & Fisher, W. A. (2014). “Did you come?” A qualitative exploration of gender differences in beliefs, experiences, and concerns regarding female orgasm occurrence during heterosexual sexual inter- actions. Journal of Sex Research, 51(6), 616–631. doi:10.1080/ 00224499.2013.838934

Schaefer, L. C. (1973). Women and sex: Sexual experiences and reactions of a group of thirty women as told to a female psychotherapist. New York, NY: Pantheon.

Smith, T. W. (1992). Discrepancies between men and women in report- ing number of sexual partners: A summary from four countries. Social Biology, 39(3–4), 203–211. doi:10.1080/19485565.1992. 9988817

Snell, W. E. Jr., & Papini, D. R. (1989). The Sexuality Scale: An instrument to measure sexual‐esteem, sexual‐depression, and sexual‐preoccupa- tion. Journal of Sex Research, 26(2), 256–263. doi:10.1080/ 00224498909551510

Symonds, T., Roblin, D., Hart, K., & Althof, S. (2003). How does premature ejaculation impact a man’s life? Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 29(5), 361–370. doi:10.1080/00926230390 224738

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Theodore, P. S., & Basow, S. A. (2000). Heterosexual masculinity and homophobia: A reaction to the self? Journal of Homosexuality, 40(2), 31–48. doi:10.1300/J082v40n02_03

van Anders, S. M., Tolman, R. M., & Volling, B. L. (2012). Baby cries and nurturance affect testosterone in men. Hormones and Behavior, 61(1), 31–36. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.09.012

Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1325–1339. doi:10.1037/a0012453

Wiederman, M. W. (1997). The truth must be in here somewhere: Examining the gender discrepancy in self‐reported lifetime number of sex partners. Journal of Sex Research, 34(4), 375–386. doi:10.1080/ 00224499709551905

Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal, 13(4), 496–502. doi:10.1177/1066480705278729

Willer, R., Rogalin, C. L., Conlon, B., & Wojnowicz, M. T. (2013). Overdoing gender: A test of the masculine overcompensation thesis. American Journal of Sociology, 118(4), 980–1022. doi:10.1086/ 668417

CHADWICK AND VAN ANDERS

12