Encyclopedia of SociologyVol._4

the fools that others make them out to be but are often making a conscious choice to ignore a spouse’s infidelity because of a lack of attractive alternatives to the current relationship.

As this discussion illustrates, little research has been conducted on extradyadic affairs among cohabitors, gay men, and lesbians, with the exception being the collection of statistics on the incidence of such experiences, as was discussed above. While heterosexual cohabitors may experience the same conditions and responses to their own or their partners’ infidelity as do the legally married, future research should specifically address the experience of extradyadic sex among them in addition to infidelity among homosexual couples.

As has been suggested throughout this article, the relationships of homosexuals may be both similar to and different from those of heterosexuals in important respects (as an example, recall the very high relative rates of nonmonogamy among gay men, while the rates of nonmonogamy are similar among lesbians and heterosexual wives). Indeed, the relationships of gay men and lesbians are similar to and different from each other in important ways as well. The following section presents the results of research indicating the incidence and prevalence of homosexuality for both men and women as well as how those relationships may be similar to and different from the relationships of heterosexuals.

HOMOSEXUALITY

Behavioral Incidence. In discussing statistics on the prevalence of homosexual experience among men and women, one must be extremely cautious. Even at the end of the twentieth century, homosexuality was still a decidedly stigmatized status. This can be seen in attitudes toward homosexuality: In their analysis of General Social Survey data, Davis and Smith (1987) found that 75 percent of adults in the United States believe that sexual relations between two adults of the same sex are ‘‘always wrong.’’ Only 12 percent of adults believe that sexual relations between two same-sex partners are ‘‘not wrong at all.’’ This stigma probably results in some individuals claiming no homosexual experience when such experience has occurred or continues to occur for those individuals. Thus, one may suspect that reported statistics on the

incidence and prevalence of homosexuality are inaccurately low.

Furthermore, homosexuality may be measured in a number of ways. For example, homosexuality may be defined as having same-gender sex partners, as expressing homosexual desires, or defining oneself as homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, and so on (Laumann et al. 1994). Such variability leads Laumann et al. to conclude that there is ‘‘unambiguous evidence that no single number can be used to provide an accurate and valid characterization of the incidence and prevalence of homosexuality in the population at large’’ (1994, p. 301).

Laumann et al. (1994) report different percentages of the incidence and prevalence of homosexuality depending on how homosexual experience is defined. For example, they found that 0.6 percent of men and 0.2 percent of women have exclusive homosexual experience; that is, these men and women have never engaged in sexual activity with a person of the opposite sex. However, when respondents were asked if they had had any same-gender sex partners since the age of 18, 4.9 percent of the men and 4.1 percent of the women reported having had same-gender sex partners. Furthermore, 9.1 percent of men and 4.3 percent of women reported having engaged in at least one sexual practice with a same-gender partner since puberty (these practices include oral and anal sex). Also, 2.0 percent of men and 0.9 percent of women define themselves as homosexual (0.8 percent of men and 0.5 percent of women define themselves as bisexual; the remainder define themselves as heterosexual). In short, as these statistics illustrate, accurately determining the incidence and prevalence of homosexuality is both a political issue and a methodological issue.

The Character of Homosexual Relationships.

Today most individuals maintain their intimate relationships in ways that differ from the traditional model (i.e., a breadwinning father and a stay-at-home mother). These various methods of maintaining relationships typically are referred to by social scientists and the larger public as ‘‘alternatives’’ rather than as legitimate family relationships (Boswell 1994; Scanzoni et al. 1989). Defining these relationships as alternatives to the standard (the traditional nuclear family) implies that such

relationships are somehow not as legitimate or valid as the standard (Scanzoni et al. 1989).

A closer examination of these relationships, however, indicates that dyads that do not conform to the traditional standard are similar in certain important respects to traditional heterosexual relationships, particularly in the dyads’ search for emotional intimacy and permanence (Scanzoni et al. 1989). More specifically, both heterosexual and homosexual individuals often seek potential partners who are similar to themselves in important ways (Murray 1996). For example, in her analysis of the relationships of homosexual dyads, Sherman (1992) interviewed numerous couples who specifically stated that they chose their current partners on the basis of shared behaviors or interests. For example, John and Reid, a couple that had been together for seventeen years, discussed how

when we first got together, we talked a great deal about life goals and how we felt about relationships. . . . We decided early on that we wouldn’t allow anything to come between us. We’ve really worked at that. We’ve made sacrifices about where we wanted to live and what we did professionally to help the other out at different points (p. 60).

However, both men agreed that while their relationship comes before the pursuit of individual interests, ‘‘we both sense the importance of being individuals and helping the other toward self-actualization’’ (p. 60). Thus, this couple struck a balance between pursuing their individual autonomy and maintaining their relationship on the basis of their similar values.

Similarly, in a study of eighty-four lesbian couples, Weber (1998) interviewed numerous couples who emphasized the importance of shared interests in forming and maintaining their relationships. A 46-year-old educator and a 43-year-old registered nurse who had been cohabiting for two years reminisced about how they came together: ‘‘We met at a Democratic fund-raiser, so through our work there we gained respect for each other overall and realized that we are intellectual and political equals. We also noted that we are peers on an educational and vocational level’’ (p. 57).

It appears that similarity in relevant characteristics attracts potential long-term partners to each other regardless of whether the couple consists of

heterosexual partners, gay men, or lesbians. These long-term couples share a strong sense of commitment and the expectation of permanence based on similar values, making their relationships similar.

However, the relationships of both gay men and lesbians differ in some important respects from those of heterosexual couples, mainly because of the lack of social support homosexual couples experience as a result of their stigmatized status. More specifically, legal and religious institutions for the most part do not acknowledge the legitimacy of homosexual relationships. While in some cities homosexual couples may obtain domestic partnership certificates that publicly acknowledge their relationships, they still may not legally marry in the United States (Wisensale and Heckart 1993; Worsnop 1992). Also, while some representatives of mainstream religious organizations are willing to perform commitment ceremonies (see Sherman 1992 for a discussion of couples who engaged in these ceremonies), the official position of Catholicism, Judaism, and mainstream Protestantism is not to acknowledge such relationships in a religious sense.

Homosexuals confront numerous issues that do not affect heterosexuals. For example, homosexuals often must come to terms with a sexual identity that is stigmatized by the society in which they live. They also must decide whether they will ‘‘come out’’ to family members, friends, and coworkers, recognizing that doing so may jeopardize their relationships and employment. Heterosexuals do not ‘‘come out’’ with their sexual identity, as it is assumed that they are straight, and such an identity is encouraged and valued. Also, heterosexuals are rarely concerned that their sexual identity may result in social ostracism. One may expect that such concerns have an impact on the relationships of homosexual couples, something that is not experienced by heterosexual couples.

Homosexual couples often are shunned by family members and heterosexual friends when they reveal their sexual identity and introduce their partners to others. As a result, friends who do support the couple become defined by that couple as family (Nardi 1992). Those friends may be more important to the support of homosexual relationships than are the friends and family members of heterosexual couples, who also enjoy societywide support for their relationships, as was noted above.

Homosexuals are clearly aware of their sec- ond-class status in U.S. society. As a 35-year-old Department of Defense worker explained (Weber 1998, p. 50): ‘‘I am a valid and vital human being. I am a taxpayer, a property owner, a veteran, a professional, and also happen to be a lesbian. It is one aspect of who I am, yet it is the only aspect by which I am judged.’’ A 36-year-old school counselor shared her experiences with the pressure associated with her socially ascribed second-class status (Weber 1998, pp. 51–52):

I love my child. I work. I pay taxes. I follow the Ten Commandments. I have friends and relatives that love me and I love them. I would help anyone in their time of need. I live next door to you in a clean house with a manicured yard. I live with my spouse, my child, and two dogs. I’m so normal that I’m boring. Yet, while I call her my spouse, I cannot legally marry the love of my life. While I love and support and care for my child, she could be taken away from me at the drop of a hat. While I have a responsible job at which I am very good, I could get fired without recourse. While I pay taxes, I cannot claim ‘‘head of household’’ or file jointly with my partner. While I follow the Ten Commandments, many churches will not allow me to attend their services.

My family and friends are the most important things in my life, yet if many of my friends knew what my family included, they would cease to be my friends. How can this be? Because I am a lesbian, and according to the laws of this country and the moral judgments of most of you, I am a pervert that should not be allowed to exist.

In discussing both lesbian and gay male relationships together and comparing them to heterosexual relationships, it should not be assumed that homosexual relationships are similar regardless of the gender of the partners (indeed, it should not be assumed that all heterosexual relationships, all lesbian relationships, or all gay male relationships are similar). As was noted above, gay men and lesbians differ significantly with regard to sexual frequency, number of partners, and other characteristics. However, lesbians and gay men suffer from the same stigmatized status as homosexuals. Future research should continue to explore the various coping mechanisms employed by homosexual couples in dealing with this stigma as well as

the ways in which their relationships are affected by it.

Summary. As this discussion illustrates, homosexual relationships are similar in a variety of ways to heterosexual relationships, particularly with regard to the degree of commitment in longterm relationships and the expectation for permanence. Although, as was noted earlier, the majority of gay men are sexually nonexclusive, one should not interpret this to mean that among gay men involved in long-term unions, few are committed to their partners as evidenced by sexual nonexclusivity. Indeed, there are heterosexual couples who engage in nonmonogamy yet remain committed to their primary unions (see the above discussion of extramarital sex). Monogamy should not be confused with commitment to one’s relationship, and nonmonogamy should not be considered an indication of a lack of commitment.

Homosexual relationships do, however, differ in important respects from heterosexual relationships as a result of the second-class status of their unions. One may suspect that this stigma has an impact on the relationship dynamics of homosexual unions. Future research is needed to understand more fully how societal conditions affect these intimate relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

This article has demonstrated that even in examining only close, committed relationships, knowledge of sexual behavior is largely descriptive. Researchers need to explore in much greater depth the sexual dynamics of these relationships. More specifically, there is a need for a better understanding of how couples negotiate their sexual behaviors. Who decides how frequently a couple will engage in sexual activity and in what behaviors they will engage in and when? What is the negotiation process? Also, there is virtually no understanding of how the larger society affects the sex lives of individuals and couples, with the exception of theories of gender socialization in explaining differences between men and women. Of course, asking these questions is a political as well as a methodological endeavor that requires a strong financial and philosophical commitment on a societal basis. While the knowledge of sexual behavior in close relationships has progressed considerably the last few years, a greater understanding is

needed of how individuals negotiate and manage their sex lives in the context of committed relationships rather than simply understanding what individuals do sexually. (Note: The authors wish to thank Susan Sprecher for her assistance on this article.)

(SEE ALSO: Courtship; Sexual Behavior Patterns; Sexual

Orientation)

Denmark, F. L., J. S. Shaw, and S. D. Ciali 1985 ‘‘The Relationship among Sex Roles, Living Arrangements, and the Division of Household Responsibilities.’’ Sex Roles 12:617–625.

Donnelly, D. A. 1993 ‘‘Sexually Inactive Marriages.’’

Journal of Sex Research 30:171–179.

Edwards, J. N. and A. Booth, 1994 ‘‘Sexuality, Marriage, and Well-Being: the Middle Years.’’ In A. S. Rossi, ed., Sexuality Across the Life Course. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

REFERENCES

Atwater, L. 1982 The Extramarital Connection: Sex, Intimacy, and Identity. New York: Irvington.

Blair, S. L. 1994 ‘‘Marriage and Cohabitation: Distinctions and Similarities across the Division of Household Labor.’’ Family Perspective 28:31–52.

Block, J. D. 1978 The Other Man, the Other Woman: Understanding and Coping with Extramarital Affairs. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.

Boswell, J. 1994 Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. New York: Morrow.

Blumstein, P., and P. Schwartz 1983 American Couples. New York: Morrow.

Buss, D. M. 1998 ‘‘Sexual Strategies Theory: Historical Origins and Current Status.’’ Journal of Sex Research 35:19–31.

Call, V., S. Sprecher, and P. Schwartz 1995 ‘‘The Incidence and Frequency of Marital Sex in a National Sample.’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 57:639–652.

Chodorow, N. 1978 The Reproduction of Mothering. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Choi, K., J. A. Catania, and M. M. Dolcini 1994 ‘‘Extramarital Sex and HIV Risk Behavior among U.S. Adults: Results from the National AIDS Behavioral Survey.’’ American Journal of Public Health 84:2003–2007.

Christopher, F. S., and S. Sprecher In press ‘‘Sexuality in Marriage, Dating, and Other Relationships: A Decade Review.’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family.

Cupach, W. R., and J. Comstock 1990 ‘‘Satisfaction with Sexual Communication in Marriage: Links to Sexual Satisfaction and Dyadic Adjustment.’’ Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 7:179–186.

Davis, J. A. 1980 General Social Surveys, 1972–1988. Cumulative Data. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.

———, and T. W. Smith 1987 General Social Surveys, 1972–1988. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.

DeLamater, J. D., and J. S. Hyde 1998 ‘‘Essentialism vs. Social Constructionism in the Study of Human Sexuality.’’ Journal of Sex Research 35:10–18.

Forste, R., and K. Tanfer 1996 ‘‘Sexual Exclusivity among Dating, Cohabiting and Married Women.’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 58:33–47.

Framo, J. L., Y. A. Cohen, H. A. Otto, C. Symonds, A. Ellis, L. G. Smith, J. R. Smith, and L. Salzman 1975 ‘‘How Does an Affair Affect a Marriage? 7 Views.’’ In L. Gross, ed., Sexual Issues in Marriage: A Contemporary Perspective. New York: Spectrum.

Glass, S. P., and T. L. Wright 1992 ‘‘Justifications for Extramarital Relationships: The Association between Attitudes, Behaviors, and Gender.’’ Journal of Sex Research 29:361–387.

Greeley, A. M. 1991 Faithful Attraction: Discovering Intimacy, Love, and Fidelity in American Marriage. New York: Doherty.

Kinsey, A. C., W. B. Pomeroy, and C. E. Martin 1948

Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: Saunders.

———, and P. H. Gebhard 1953 Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: Saunders.

Laumann, E. O., J. H. Gagnon, R. T. Michael, and S. Michaels 1994 The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lawrance, K., and E. S. Byers 1995 ‘‘Sexual Satisfaction in Long-Term Heterosexual Relationships: The Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction.’’

Personal Relationships 2:267–285.

Longmore, M. A. 1998 ‘‘Symbolic Interactionism and the Study of Sexuality.’’ Journal of Sex Research 35:44–57.

Macklin, E. D. 1983a. ‘‘Nonmarital Heterosexual Cohabitation.’’ In A. S. Skolnick and J. H. Skolnick, eds., Family in Transition, 4th ed. Boston: Little, Brown.

——— 1983b ‘‘Nonmarital Heterosexual Cohabitation: An Overview.’’ In E. D. Macklin and R. H. Rubin, eds., Contemporary Families and Alternative Lifestyles. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

Marsiglio, W., and D. Donnelly 1991 ‘‘Sexual Relations in Later Life: A National Study of Married Persons.’’

Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 46:S338–344.

Meyers, L., and H. Leggitt 1975 ‘‘A Positive View of Adultery.’’ In L. Gross, ed., Sexual Issues in Marriage: A Contemporary Perspective. New York: Spectrum.

Moultrup, D. J. 1990 Husbands, Wives, and Lovers: The Emotional System of the Extramarital Affair. New York: Guilford Press.

Murray, S. O. 1996 American Gay. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Nardi, P. M. 1992 ‘‘That’s What Friends Are for: Friends as Family in the Gay and Lesbian Community.’’ In K. Plummer, ed., Modern Homosexualities: Fragments of Lesbian and Gay Experience. London: Routledge.

Oliver, M. B., and J. S. Hyde 1993. ‘‘Gender Differences in Sexuality: A Meta-analysis.’’ Psychological Bulletin 114:29–51.

Parsons. T., and R. F. Bales 1955 Family, Socialization, and Interaction Process. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.

Peplau, L. A., Z. Rubin, and C. T. Hill 1977 ‘‘Sexual Intimacy in Dating Relationships.’’ Journal of Social Issues 33:86–109.

Pietropinto, A., and J. Simenaur 1977 Beyond the Male Myth. New York: New American Library.

Rao, K. V., and A. DeMaris 1995 ‘‘Coital Frequency among Married and Cohabiting Couples in the United States.’’ Journal of Biosocial Science 27:135–150.

Relationships, vol. 2: Stability and Change in Relationship Behavior. Cambridge.

Weber, J. C. 1998 Lesbian Dyads as Families, Ph.D. dissertation. University of Florida.

Weis, D. L. 1998a ‘‘Conclusion: The State of Sexual Theory.’’ Journal of Sex Research 35:100–114.

——— 1998b ‘‘The Use of Theory in Sexuality Research.’’ Journal of Sex Research 35:1–9.

Wiederman, M. W. 1997 ‘‘Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlates in a National Survey.’’ Journal of Sex Research 34:167–174.

Wisensale, S. K., and K. E. Heckart 1993 ‘‘Domestic Partnerships: A Concept Paper and Policy Discussion.’’ Family Relations 42:199–204.

Worsnop, R. L. 1992 ‘‘Domestic Partners.’’ CQ Researcher 2:762–783.

Yablonsky, L. 1979 The Extra-Sex Factor: Why over Half of America’s Men Play Around. New York: Times Books.

Ziskin, J., and M. Ziskin 1973 The Extra-Marital Sex Contract. Los Angeles: Nash.

MARION C. WILLETTS

JANIS C. WEBER

Reiss, I. L. 1960 Premarital Sexual Standards in America. New York: Free Press.

Richardson, D. 1996 Theorising Heterosexuality: Telling It Straight. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Richardson, L. 1985 The New Other Woman: Contemporary Single Women in Affairs with Married Men. New York: Free Press.

——— 1988 ‘‘Secrecy and Status: The Social Construction of Forbidden Relationships.’’ American Sociological Review 53:209–219.

Rubin, L. B. 1990 Erotic Wars: What Happened to the Sexual Revolution? New York: HarperCollins.

Scanzoni, J., K. Polonko, J. Teachman, and L. Thompson 1989 The Sexual Bond: Rethinking Families and Close Relationships. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

Sherman, S. 1992 Lesbian and Gay Marriage. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Sprecher, S. 1998 ‘‘Social Exchange Theories and Sexuality.’’ Journal of Sex Research 35:32–43.

———, and K. McKinney 1993 Sexuality. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

Sprecher, S., D. Felmlee, T. L. Orbuch, and M. C. Willetts In press ‘‘Social Networks and Change in Personal Relationships.’’ In A. Vangelisti, H. Reis, and M. A. Fitzpatrick, eds., Advances in Personal

SEXUAL BEHAVIOR

PATTERNS

In the face of significant political and methodological obstacles, social science researchers have continued to advance the understanding of human sexuality. Clearly, the political climate surrounding sex research has improved since Kinsey and his colleagues conducted their pioneering studies on male and female sexuality in the late 1940s and early 1950s (Kinsey et al. 1948, 1953), but the politics of sex research continue to impede progress in this area. One prominent research team, for example, was forced to abandon its efforts to secure federal funding and turn to private foundations to support a landmark study on human sexuality in the general population (Laumann et al. 1994b).

Despite the efforts of some conservative politicians, policymakers have become more willing to fund research on sexuality and related issues. This funding pattern is documented by the numerous large-scale national surveys that were supported by federal monies during the late 1980s and 1990s. These studies dealt extensively with sex and re-

lated issues (e.g., National AIDS Behavioral Survey, National Surveys of Adolescent Males, National Surveys of Men) or included a small battery of sex-related questions in surveys dealing primarily with other topics (e.g., ADD Health Surveys, National Household Survey of Drug Use, National Surveys of Families and Households, National Survey of Labor Market Experience–Youth, Youth Risk Behavior Survey). Funding agencies such as the Social Science Research Council Sexuality Research Fellowship Program are expanding studies of sexuality by offering crucial support for both quantitative and qualitative research projects about sexuality (Di Mauro 1997). Efforts also are being made to expand international studies of sexual behavior (Parker 1997). Most observers agree that the human immunodeficiency virus/ acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/ AIDS) epidemic has provided the major impetus for this turnaround.

While a great deal has been learned about sexual behavior in recent years, especially among adolescent and young adult men, much of this research has focused on sexuality within a ‘‘social problems’’ context. This research typically has dealt with issues associated with teenage sexuality and pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, coercive sexuality, or another form of sexuality that has attracted a ‘‘deviant’’ label. As a result, relatively little attention has been devoted to studying the expression of sexuality in noncontroversial, everyday life circumstances.

Sex research took an impressive step forward with the publication of The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Laumann et al. 1994a) and Sex in America (Michael et al. 1994), the less technical version of this study prepared for the general public. These publications were based on data drawn from the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) that included face-to-face interviews and supplemental self-administered questionnaires given to 3,432 respondents aged 18–59 who were selected randomly from the noninstitutionalized population. The NHSLS represents the most comprehensive sex survey to date that uses a probability sample of the general noninstitutionalized U.S. population.

Conducting sex surveys or other types of research in this area continues to be difficult because sex researchers, compared with researchers in

most other areas, deal with particularly sensitive and personal topics and therefore face serious difficulties with issues related to response bias, sample representativeness, measurement, and ethics. With these methodological issues in mind (Bancroft 1997; Bentler and Abramson 1980; Jayne 1986; Kelley 1986) and given this article’s space limitations, this review assesses the available research on sexual behavior in the United States. The brevity of this article precludes a review of all the literature on individuals’ subjective perceptions of sexuality. Notably, much of the research on gay, lesbian, and bisexual experiences has revolved around identity, etiology, community, and AIDS (Risman and Schwartz 1988). While this entry discusses same-sex sexual behavior patterns, the reader should consult ‘‘Sexual Orientation’’ in this encyclopedia for a summary of literature about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual/transvestite identities and experiences. Since much of the literature on sexuality subsumes behavior under identity, this discussion uses the terms ‘‘heterosexual,’’ ‘‘homosexual,’’ and ‘‘bisexual’’ as adjectives rather than nouns and uses the terms ‘‘gay,’’ ‘‘lesbian,’’ and ‘‘bisexual’’ to refer to self-identity as reported in research studies (Risman and Schwartz 1988).

This discussion takes into account five basic and interrelated features of sexuality: (1) patterns of behavior, emphasizing gender, race, and sexual orientation, (2) the varied meaning of sexuality at distinctive periods throughout the life course, (3) social control aspects, particularly as they relate to prostitution, (4) the consensual and coercive contexts within which sex occurs, and (5) the relationship between the HIV epidemic and sexual behavior. While this entry reviews primarily social science literature, a number of studies have been published in the popular press, some of which have received considerable attention from the lay population, that are based on self-selected samples of persons who returned magazine surveys (Kelley 1986 provides a review of these works) or volunteered for qualitative interview studies (Rubin 1990).

SEXUALITY IN THE LIFE COURSE

Childhood Sexual Behavior. Given the Western view of children as asexual beings, little social science research has been conducted on childhood sexuality in the United States; most of the

limited research has occurred within northern Europe. Data that are available typically rely on adults’ recollections of their childhood experiences or the reports of parents about their children. While this research is methodologically limited, it does offer a glimpse of children’s sexual behavior and play.

Anthropological research has shown clearly that while individuals in Western cultures tend to view children as asexual, children are seen as being capable of sexual activity in many nonindustrialized, non-Western countries (Ford and Beach 1951). Parents in non-Western countries sometimes tolerate and even encourage their children to pursue heterosexual behaviors (including intercourse), homosexual behaviors (e.g., fellatio), or both. In some societies mothers masturbate their children to soothe them.

The available research indicates that prepubertal boys are much more likely to experience intense sexual interest and masturbate and to do so at younger ages than their female counterparts. Boys also appear to participate more frequently throughout childhood in both heterosexual and homosexual play activities that have sexual overtones (e.g, ‘‘doctor and nurse’’). These activities typically include an element of exhibition, exploration, and experimentation. In a unique longitudinal study of children in California, researchers found that about 48 percent of mothers reported that their children had engaged in interactive sex play (77 percent when masturbation was included) before age 6 and that exposure to such sex play was not related to children’s long-term adjustment at ages 17 to 18 (Okami et al. 1997).

Other researchers focusing on heterosexual and lesbian women in Brazil, Peru, the Philippines, and the United States found similarities across cultures in regard to memories of childhood sexual behavior. Self-identified lesbians were found to be more sexually active as children and reported earlier contact than did heterosexual women. Lesbians also were more interested in girls than heterosexual women were in boys, even though lesbians reported more early attractions to men than did heterosexual women (Whitam et al. 1998). Another study of gay and bisexual male youth ranging in age from 17 to 23 also depends on memories of childhood to understand early childhood same-sex attractions. The results of this

study show that in most cases, same-sex attractions began in childhood and were given sexual meaning at the onset of puberty (Savin-Williams et al. 1996). Both studies suggest that same-sex attractions are felt in childhood and are acted on in adolescence.

Adolescent and Young Adult Sexual Behavior. In contrast to childhood sexuality, an expansive body of literature on adolescent heterosexual behavior has emerged during the past two decades, and much more extensive data are now available on young males (Moore et al. 1995, 1998; Sonenstein et al. 1997). Much of this research has used one of several national data sets to document and examine rates and trends for age at first intercourse and sexual activity patterns, with particular attention given to racial patterns.

The bulk of the evidence suggests that there was a sizable increase in the rate of sexual activity among teenage females in the 1970s and 1980s, although that increase appears to have leveled off in the 1990s. In fact, among 15to 19-year-old females, while the proportion that had ever had intercourse increased from 29 percent in 1970 to 55 percent in 1990, it declined slightly to 50 percent in 1995. About 77 percent of 19-year-old females have had sex at least once. The main reason teenage females remain virgins is that having sex would violate their religious or moral values. While rates among African-American and white females have converged over the past two decades, black females are still more likely to report being sexually active than are their white counterparts. Whereas 90 percent of black females have had intercourse by age 19, about 75 percent of whites and Hispanics have had coitus.

Sexual activity rates among comparably aged males have increased since the 1970s and have always been higher than those of females. A 1998 study compared three separate national samples of males aged 17–19 living in metropolitan areas in 1979, 1988, and 1995 and found that the percentage of respondents who had ever had heterosexual intercourse shifted from 66 percent, to 76 percent, to 68 percent (Ku et al. 1998). However, these changes were restricted to nonblack males because the rates for blacks increased from 1979 to 1988 and then remained basically constant between 1988 and 1995. A similar curvilinear pattern

for the overall sample (but not for blacks) was observed when researchers examined the proportion of teenage males who had had intercourse in the four-week period before the interview. Meanwhile, the average number of times young males engaged in sexual intercourse during the previous twelve-month period increased from fourteen in 1979 to seventeen in 1988 to twenty-one in 1995. While black males did not experience a change in frequency between 1979 and 1988, they reported a significant increase from 1988 to 1995 (thirteen versus twenty-four acts per year).

Attempts to explain why youth initiate sex have focused primarily on the direct and indirect influence of sociodemographic, social psychological, and biological factors. Most of the research designs, especially those used in studying females, are not ideal for concluding a causal relationship between beliefs, attitudes, or values and sexual behavior because these variables tend to be measured simultaneously. Despite this methodological shortcoming, a number of factors appear to be related positively (when controlling for numerous variables) to the probability of individuals engaging in heterosexual intercourse at a young age: being black, living in a poverty area, having weak religious beliefs, attending a segregated school (for blacks), attending an integrated school (for whites), lower parental education, having a mother who was sexually active at a young age, living in a single-parent household, having more siblings, and having a low level of academic achievement.

In addition to these social variables, a small number of researchers have used cross-sectional and longitudinal designs to study the relationship between adolescent hormones and heterosexual behavior (Udry 1988). While this research has produced mixed results, hormones and biological markers associated with puberty appear to be related to adolescents’ sexuality (both attitudes and behavior). Consequently, a growing number of social scientists are advocating the development of biosocial models that take into account the complex interrelationship among the pubertal process, sexual identity development, sexual behavior, and societal norms. Collecting saliva and blood samples has become an acceptable, and increasingly expected, component of national data collection efforts that target adolescent sexuality and fertility.

The discussion of social and biological factors leading toward the initiation of sexual behavior is also present in studies of same-sex attractions, desires, and behaviors. Similar to heterosexual onset of active sexuality, gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth report the development of sexual interest during puberty. Gagnon (1977) explains that young men typically self-identify as gay and have homosexual experiences at an earlier age than do young women. Jay and Young (1979) report awareness of same-sex attraction for young men developing at the median age of 13 or 14 and for young women at age 18. Cohen and Savin-Williams (1996, pp. 120–121) summarize the results of ten different studies of the initiation of sexual behavior (mostly among young men) and find that the average age of reported first experience of homosexual sex is 15 for young men, with young women reporting an average age of 16. Importantly, same-sex sexual behavior is not always correlated with the development of a gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity. Studies show that youth will participate in homosexual activities without later ‘‘coming out’’ as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. In particular, as a result of cultural understandings of gender and sexuality, Chicano men who participate in same-sex anal intercourse do not consider it ‘‘gay sex’’ unless one is in the subordinant (receptor) role (Almaguer 1993; Alonso and Koreck 1993; Carrier 1989). Research in this area supports the supposition that social and cultural factors are important in the initiation of same-sex sexual behavior and its attendant meaning.

Research on adolescent homosexual and bisexual behavior is complicated by the stigma associated with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity, and so many youths do not self-report same-sex activities (Savin-Williams et al. 1996). While many selfidentified gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents report desiring steady, loving same-sex relationships, many maintain heterosexual relationships and fear revealing close same-sex friendship because of the stigma associated with being ‘‘gay’’ (Hetrick and Martin 1987). Thus, studies of sexual behavior among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents have documented heterosexual behavior, although with a lesser frequency than is the case with heterosexual counterparts. Interestingly, lesbian and bisexual female adolescents tend to report more heterosexual experiences than do gay and bisexual male adolescents (Herdt and Boxer

1993). Research on the frequency of sexual activity among gay, lesbian, and bisexual young adults indicates that for some populations, entry into college allows an increase in the frequency of sexual experiences (Evans and D’Augelli 1996).

While most research has focused on heterosexual intercourse, a number of studies of adolescent and young adult populations have examined issues related to the number of sexual partners, frequency of sexual intercourse, other types of sex acts, and the sequencing of petting behaviors (Laumann et al. 1994a; Moore et al. 1995 ; Warren et al. 1998). The majority of teenagers and those in their twenties tend to have one sexual partner at a time, a form of serial monogamy. One study found that 72 percent of women aged 18–29 reported having only one partner in the previous year, and another found that only about 10 percent of females have two or more partners in a three-month period. Among the sexually experienced, about 77 percent of 15to 19-year-old females and 85 percent of those aged 20–24 report having sex more than once a month. Among sexually experienced teenage males aged 15–19, 54 percent report having had no more than one partner in the previous year, 80 percent report having had two partners, and 6 percent report having had five or more.

Researchers also have shown that the prevalence of oral sex has grown tremendously in this century. Kinsey’s data revealed that very few college women born between 1910 and 1935 performed fellatio (11 percent) or received cunnilingus (12 percent). More recent studies in California and North Carolina suggest that between onethird and one-half of adolescents aged 15–18 have engaged in oral sex (Hass 1979; Newcomer and Udry 1985), while nonrepresentative studies of college students in the United States and Canada indicate that between 32 and 86 percent of females have administered oral sex and between 44 and 68 percent say they have received it (Herold and Way 1983; Young 1980). Furthermore, Kinsey’s data suggested that oral sex was primarily experienced only among those who also had experienced coitus (only 5 percent of male and female virgins reported performing it), but more recent research indicates that a sizable minority of youth are experiencing oral sex while they are technically virgins.

Single-Adult Sexual Behavior. Because researchers have not clearly and consistently distin-

guished between young adult (18to 24-year-olds) and adult sexual behavior in presenting their findings, it is difficult to present a clear-cut review of ‘‘adult’’ sexual behavior among single persons. Research has shown that rising divorce rates and postponement of marriage for heterosexual men and women have increased the population of single adults (Blumstein and Schwartz 1983). The inability of gay and lesbian partners to marry legally also contributes to the growing population of ‘‘single adults’’ because some persons in committed relationships are categorized as single. This growing population of single adults and the typical transition from experimentation and dating to long-term, committed relationships bring into focus a significant type of adult sexual behavior. While these demographic patterns are noteworthy, a large proportion of individuals still experience a significant proportion of their adult sexual histories within committed relationships or marriage.

For single adults, it is known that individuals today move through the sequence from first kiss to first intercourse much more quickly than did older cohorts of a similar age. Many of these first sexual experiences with a new partner occur within an arrangement that is perceived in some ways to be a relationship. Although men are more likely to find recreational sex outside a relationship acceptable, both men and women prefer to have sex within an ongoing romantic relationship. Thus, contrary to stereotypical images, most adults have sex infrequently when they are not in a relationship. Indeed, national data based on a sample of 18to 59- year-olds who report being sexually active in the past year indicate that without controlling for age, 48 percent of men and 54 percent of women who have never been married and are not currently cohabiting have had sex only a few times or not at all in the past year. These figures varied only slightly for men (46 percent) and women (58 percent) who were divorced, separated, or widowed but were not married or cohabiting. The mean monthly frequency of sex (vaginal, oral, or anal) was 5.6 and 5.3 for men and women who never married and were not currently cohabiting and 5.4 and 5.1 for men and women who were divorced, separated, or widowed. Only 8 to 9 percent of men and women who had never married but were currently cohabiting—persons who could be perceived technically as being single— reported similarly low levels of sexual activity: a

few times a year or not at all. Meanwhile, among never married, noncohabiting persons, 29 percent of men and 21 percent of women reported giving oral sex to their partners during the most recent sexual experience. Among the entire sample, regardless of whether the respondents had sex in the past year, 67 percent of men and 70 percent of women reported that they had engaged in active oral sex at some point during their lives.

One of the revelations of Kinsey’s early research was the extent to which people had samesex sexual experiences without identifying themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual. Since Kinsey’s research, this finding has been reproduced in a variety of different contexts. Laumann et al.’s comprehensive sex study (1994a) illustrates how the interaction of behavior, attraction, and sexual identity complicates the measurement of the number of people who could be understood to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Ultimately, Laumann et al. (1994a) conclude that there is a core group of people who define themselves as ‘‘homosexual or bisexual,’’ have same-gender partners, and express homosexual desires. Yet there are also a number of men and women who have adult same-sex sexual experiences or desires but do not identify themselves as ‘‘homosexual or bisexual.’’ Additionally, variables (e.g., place of residence and level of education) are found to influence the number of homosexual experiences. Because of the complexity of measurement, Laumann et al. (1994a) conclude that there is no single answer to the prevalence of homosexuality. Studies of adult sexual experiences among men of color in the United States and men of color in other cultures also have illustrated the extent to which heterosexual adults engage in same-sex sexual behavior: Research has identified a large population of men who have sex with men (MSM) yet do not selfidentify as gay or bisexual (Manalansan 1996). Research since Kinsey’s original attempt to develop a comprehensive (although nonrepresentative) understanding of sexual behavior in the United States has shown that some adults participate in homosexual behavior without self-identifying as such.

Despite the complexity of sexual identity and behavior, a great deal of research on same-sex adult behavior patterns has been comparative, creating a binary heterosexual-homosexual comparison. This dualistic approach is so prevalent that many sexual activities are understood as being

in the domain of only heterosexual behavior or only homosexual behavior. For example, tranvestitism (cross-dressing) has been defined in the psychological literature as primarily the domain of heterosexual men, yet more recent research suggests that men with cross-dressing habits behave as homosexual, bisexual, and asexual as well as heterosexual, suggesting a complexity to adult sexual behavior patterns that is not fully understood (Bullough and Bullough 1997). In a significant study comparing same-sex sexual behavior patterns with opposite-sex behavior patterns, Masters and Johnson (1979) found some general trends of similarity for adult ‘‘heterosexuals’’ and ‘‘homosexuals’’ (both men and women). Overall, their research shows that ‘‘heterosexuals’’ and ‘‘homosexuals’’ have similar fantasy patterns and physiological responses to sexual stimuli. In other words, response to sexual stimuli is not conditioned by a particular sexual identity. Some differences between heterosexuals and nonheterosexuals emerge when women’s experiences are highlighted. A study of 70 self-categorized heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual women showed that bisexual and lesbian women were significantly more likely than were heterosexual women to describe their orgasms as ‘‘strong.’’ In addition, bisexual and lesbian women put more emphasis on oral and manual sexuality, while heterosexual women put more emphasis on intercourse as a source of sexual response (Bressler and Lavender 1986). Overall, comparative studies suggest a similarity of sexual response and fantasy for both heterosexual and homosexual behaviors but some distinctions in terms of actual sexual activities participated in by self-identified gay, lesbian, or bisexual individuals.

Another arena of research that compares heterosexual behavior to gay and lesbian behavior is the study of committed relationships. A great deal of research illustrates the prevalence of stereotypes about gay, lesbian, and bisexual people being promiscuous and not involved in long-term, committed relationships. However, in one of the few large-scale studies of relationships (including heterosexual, gay, and lesbian couples), Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) found that many lesbians and gay men establish lifelong partnerships. Research also shows that in established couples, gay men and lesbians report as much satisfaction (measured in numerous ways) as heterosexuals do (Peplau 1982). Specific research about sexual be-