Human Sexuality - myteachingspace.com
Download
Report
Transcript Human Sexuality - myteachingspace.com
Human Sexuality
Love and Communication in
Intimate Relationships
Love
Considerable attention across disciplines
What is the nature of love?
“Love has been highly conceptualized and
made very abstract” (Gage, 1976)
What Love is NOT
NOT (Firestone, Firestone & Catlett, 2006):
Selfish
Possessive
Demanding
Proprietary right over others
Submissive/dominant
Coercive or manipulative
Sexuality and Love
Not addressed in Kinsey’s research
Currently:
Numerous studies on love and sex
Love
A complex emotion
The “paradox” of love: encompasses
opposites
Love and Sexuality
Often intertwined
For many, love legitimates sex outside of
marriage
Sex as an expression of love; to deepen
the relationship (Cupach, 1990; Henderson-King,
1994)
Gender Differences:
Sex and Love
Men: sex and love can be separated
(Carroll, Volk, & Hyde, 1985)
Women: less likely to engage in casual
sex: love and sex are more closely linked
Sex and Love
Gay men:
Especially likely to separate sex and love
Intrinsic value to sex
Heterosexual men: similar?
Not as many willing partners (Blum, 1997)
Sex and Love
Lesbian relationships:
Sex is less frequent among lesbian couples,
comparatively (Schureurs, 1993)
More likely to postpone sex until emotional
intimacy is developed
Celibacy
Abstaining from sexual activity
Religious/spiritual dimensions, situational,
personal, etc.
Enhanced appreciation of friendship
functions of relationships
Asexuality
Absence of sexual attraction to others, or no
desire to act on attractions
1% of the population
Underrepresented in research and movements
Capable of intimate relationships, free of sexuality;
some prefer not to have relationships
Asexuality
An orientation
Research: asexuality exists in the animal
kingdom; sheep studies
The question of pathology
Asexuality
Prause, 2003
Asexual people report:
Low sexual desire
Low arousal/excitation
Many engage in masturbation
Styles of Love
John Lee- sociologist
6 basic styles of love: reflect relationship
styles
Assumption: It is best when we share a
relationship style with our partner
Styles of Love
Mania: obsessive/possessive love;
roller-coaster
Ludus: playful love: love is a game, not
a deep emotion
Styles of Love
Storge: love between companions: from
friendship to romance
Agape: chaste, patient, undemanding
love; the love of saints/martyrs
Styles of Love
Pragma: practical/logical love;
businesslike; looking for someone with
specific characteristics
Hendrick & Hendrick: men are more
ludic, women are more storgic/pragmatic
Triangular Theory of Love
Robert Sternberg: 3 elements of love
Each will increase/diminish over the course
of a relationship
Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment
Kinds of Love: Sternberg
Liking (intimacy only)
Infatuation (passion only)
Romantic love (intimacy and passion)
Kinds of Love
Companionate love (intimacy and
commitment)
Empty love (commitment only)
Non love (absence of all three)
Attachment Theory (Pistole, Clark & Tubbs, 1995)
Adults with:
Secure attachments: trusting, accepting,
supportive; 56% of adults
Attachment Theory
Anxious/Ambivalent attachments: afraid
their partners would leave, want to commit
prematurely; 19-20% of adults
Avoidant attachments: discomfort in close
relationships; distrustful, fear dependence;
23-25% of adults
Jealousy
Often confused with love
Jealousy is associated with immaturity
and insecurity (Pistole, 1995)
Is jealousy ever beneficial?
Jealousy
Often linked to relationship violence (Buss,
1999; Puente & Cohen, 2003)
Jealous aggression is often directed
toward a partner (Paul & Galloway, 1994)
31% of women and 17% of men had
intentionally elicited jealousy in a
relationship (Buss, 2000)
Jealousy
Why do we become/want to make others
jealous (Buss, 2000)?
Self esteem
Revenge
To increase a partner’s commitment
Test the strength of the relationship
Jealousy
Generated by:
Personal insecurities/anxieties
Boundary violations in an relationship
Lasting love
Intimate love: lasting love; counting on
the other partner; both partners have
individual and relationship goals
Consists of:
Commitment
Caring
Self-disclosure
Communication
Active Listening:
Open postures/leaning in
Eye contact
Nodding
Reflection of content
Reflection of feelings
Factors impacting communication
Personality
Relationship context
Culture
Subject matter
Non-verbal communication
Most communication of feeling is
nonverbal (Guffey, 1999)
Body posture and movements
Nonverbal Communication
Eye contact and facial expressions
Interpersonal distance
Touching
Often overrides the verbal message
Gender and Communication
Women
More sensitive/responsive during conversation and conflicts
Set the emotional tone- escalate or deescalate conflicts with
verbal and nonverbal messages
Use of emotional appeals and threats
Use of qualifying statements
(Gottman & Carre, 2000; Klintetob & Smith, 1996, Noller &
Fitzpatrick, 1991)
Gender and Communication
Men more
likely to send negative messages,
neutral messages, or to withdraw
Fewer
words, more profanity
Deborah Tannen
Gendered Communication:
Deborah Tannen
Basic Premise:
There are gender differences in
communication styles
These differences start in early childhood
Boys/Girls
Boys: play in groups; activity-driven
Girls: best friends; relationship-driven
Status and Connection
Men: power hierarchies: discourse is
used to “one-up” or “one-down” each
other
Women: collaborative: discourse to bring
people closer or farther apart
Meta-message
Meta-message: what messages do we
take away from what we hear?
Competitive/Cooperative
Both men/women are competitive and
cooperative, but conversational rituals
differ
“I’m Sorry”…
Women are more likely to use this
phrase
Sorry it happened, not taking blame
Men- more likely to ascribe blame when
“sorry” is uttered
Directness/Indirectness
Varies by gender based on context:
Women indirect when giving orders
Men indirect when describing emotional
content
Public/Private Discourse
Women: likely to try to engage men in
private discourses
Men: more likely to dominate
conversation publicly
Qualifying Statements….
Based on CONTEXT
Gender is one of many factors;
Ethnicity/culture
Age
Situation/context
Power