JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH.48(6).554-564.2011 Copyright The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality Routledge ISSN:0022-4499 print/1559-8519 online Taylor &Francis Group D0L:10.1080/00224499.2010.535623 Romantic Partners,Friends,Friends with Benefits, and Casual Acquaintances as Sexual Partners Wyndol Furman Department of Psychology,University of Denver Laura Shaffer Department of Psychology,University of Louisville School of Medicine The purpose of this study was to provide a detailed examination of sexual behavior with different types of partners.A sample of 163 young adults reported on their light nongenital, heavy nongenital,and genital sexual activity with romantic partners,friends,and casual acquaintances.They described their sexual activity with"friends with benefits,"as well as with friends in general.Young adults were most likely to engage in sexual behavior with romantic partners,but sexual behavior also often occurred with some type of nonromantic partner. More young adults engaged in some form of sexual behavior with casual acquaintances than with friends with benefits.The frequencies of sexual behavior,however,were greater with friends with benefits than with friends or casual acquaintances.Interview and questionnaire data revealed that friends with benefits were typically friends,but not necessarily.Nonsexual activities were also less common with friends with benefits than other friends.Taken together, the findings illustrate the value of differentiating among different types of nonromantic partners and different levels of sexual behavior. Most research on sexual behavior has not considered the Furstenberg,1999;Manning,Longmore,Giordano, nature of the relationship in which it occurs.When 2000).Moreover,approximately one half of sexually the context of the relationship has been considered. active adolescents have had intercourse with a non- the research has focused on sexual behavior in romantic romantic partner (Grello,Welsh,Harper,2006; relationships or some subset of romantic relationships, Manning,Giordano,Longmore,2006;Manning, such as marriages or cohabitating couples (e.g.,Kaestle Longmore,Giordano,2005).About one half of these Halpern,2007;O'Sullivan,Mantsun,Harris, incidents with a nonromantic partner occurred only Brooks-Gunn,2007).Yet,the sexual behavior of young once (Manning et al.,2006).Similarly,approximately adults and adolescents often occurs in other contexts. 75%to 80%of college students reported"hooking up" Such sexual activity has been commonly described as or engaging in some form of sexual activity with some- casual sex,nonromantic sexual behavior,or "hookups." one for just one night (England,Shafer,Fogarty, The details of the definitions vary,but they have the 2008;Paul,McManus,Hayes,2000);30%reported common denominator of referring to sexual behavior hooking up with someone for the night and having in uncommitted relationships (Weaver Herold,2000). intercourse (Paul et al.,2000). Sexual intercourse usually occurs first in a romantic Most investigators have not differentiated among or committed relationship,but approximately 25%of different partners within the general category of casual the time,it first occurs with a friend,stranger,or some- or nonromantic sexual partners.Some investigators one the person is occasionally dating (Elo,King, have examined one particular category of nonromantic partners(e.g.,friends [Afifi Faulkner,2000]or friends This research was supported by Grant 50106 from the National with benefits [Bisson Levine,2009;Owen Fincham, Institute of Mental Health(to Wyndol Furman,Primary Investigator) 2010D),but it is not clear if their findings are specific to and Grant HD049080 from the National Institute of Child Health and that category or are applicable to other types of casual Human Development (to Wyndol Furman,Primary Investigator). Appreciation is expressed to the Project STAR staff for their contri- or nonromantic sexual partners. bution to the data collection and to the individuals,families,and In the two studies that did include multiple categories schools who are participating in Project STAR. (Grello et al.,2006;Manning et al.,2005),friends were Correspondence should be addressed to Wyndol Furman,Depart- the most typical type of partner.To date,relatively little ment of Psychology,University of Denver,2155 S.Race St.,Denver, is known about differences in the sexual activity with CO 80208.E-mail:wfurman@nova.psy.du.edu
Romantic Partners, Friends, Friends with Benefits, and Casual Acquaintances as Sexual Partners Wyndol Furman Department of Psychology, University of Denver Laura Shaffer Department of Psychology, University of Louisville School of Medicine The purpose of this study was to provide a detailed examination of sexual behavior with different types of partners. A sample of 163 young adults reported on their light nongenital, heavy nongenital, and genital sexual activity with romantic partners, friends, and casual acquaintances. They described their sexual activity with ‘‘friends with benefits,’’ as well as with friends in general. Young adults were most likely to engage in sexual behavior with romantic partners, but sexual behavior also often occurred with some type of nonromantic partner. More young adults engaged in some form of sexual behavior with casual acquaintances than with friends with benefits. The frequencies of sexual behavior, however, were greater with friends with benefits than with friends or casual acquaintances. Interview and questionnaire data revealed that friends with benefits were typically friends, but not necessarily. Nonsexual activities were also less common with friends with benefits than other friends. Taken together, the findings illustrate the value of differentiating among different types of nonromantic partners and different levels of sexual behavior. Most research on sexual behavior has not considered the nature of the relationship in which it occurs. When the context of the relationship has been considered, the research has focused on sexual behavior in romantic relationships or some subset of romantic relationships, such as marriages or cohabitating couples (e.g., Kaestle & Halpern, 2007; O’Sullivan, Mantsun, Harris, & Brooks-Gunn, 2007). Yet, the sexual behavior of young adults and adolescents often occurs in other contexts. Such sexual activity has been commonly described as casual sex, nonromantic sexual behavior, or ‘‘hookups.’’ The details of the definitions vary, but they have the common denominator of referring to sexual behavior in uncommitted relationships (Weaver & Herold, 2000). Sexual intercourse usually occurs first in a romantic or committed relationship, but approximately 25% of the time, it first occurs with a friend, stranger, or someone the person is occasionally dating (Elo, King, & Furstenberg, 1999; Manning, Longmore, & Giordano, 2000). Moreover, approximately one half of sexually active adolescents have had intercourse with a nonromantic partner (Grello, Welsh, & Harper, 2006; Manning, Giordano, & Longmore, 2006; Manning, Longmore, & Giordano, 2005). About one half of these incidents with a nonromantic partner occurred only once (Manning et al., 2006). Similarly, approximately 75% to 80% of college students reported ‘‘hooking up’’ or engaging in some form of sexual activity with someone for just one night (England, Shafer, & Fogarty, 2008; Paul, McManus, & Hayes, 2000); 30% reported hooking up with someone for the night and having intercourse (Paul et al., 2000). Most investigators have not differentiated among different partners within the general category of casual or nonromantic sexual partners. Some investigators have examined one particular category of nonromantic partners (e.g., friends [Afifi & Faulkner, 2000] or friends with benefits [Bisson & Levine, 2009; Owen & Fincham, 2010]), but it is not clear if their findings are specific to that category or are applicable to other types of casual or nonromantic sexual partners. In the two studies that did include multiple categories (Grello et al., 2006; Manning et al., 2005), friends were the most typical type of partner. To date, relatively little is known about differences in the sexual activity with This research was supported by Grant 50106 from the National Institute of Mental Health (to Wyndol Furman, Primary Investigator) and Grant HD049080 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (to Wyndol Furman, Primary Investigator). Appreciation is expressed to the Project STAR staff for their contribution to the data collection and to the individuals, families, and schools who are participating in Project STAR. Correspondence should be addressed to Wyndol Furman, Department of Psychology, University of Denver, 2155 S. Race St., Denver, CO 80208. E-mail: wfurman@nova.psy.du.edu JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH, 48(6), 554–564, 2011 Copyright # The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality ISSN: 0022-4499 print=1559-8519 online DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2010.535623
SEXUAL PARTNERS different partners.Grello et al.(2006),however,found then asked about sexual behavior with friends with that more affectionate sexual behavior (e.g.,handhold- benefits (see rationale in the Methods section).We ing,hugging,kissing,and massaging)occurred when distinguished among types of sexual behavior: they were friends than when they were acquaintances or strangers.Thus,the limited research suggests that sexual activity may vary across different kinds of non- 1."Light"nongenital acts (kissing on the lips, romantic partners. cuddling,and "making out"). Not only have most investigators failed to differen- 2. "Heavy"nongenital acts (light petting,heavy tiate among categories of nonromantic partners,but petting,and dry sex). they also have not typically distinguished among differ- 3. Genital acts (oral sex,vaginal intercourse,and ent types of sexual behaviors.Intercourse does not occur anal intercourse). in approximately 60%of hookups (Paul et al.,2000). Different sexual behaviors involve different levels of risk Based on the existing literature (e.g.,Grello et al, of sexually transmitted diseases.The type of sexual 2006;Manning et al.,2006),we predicted that young behavior that commonly occurs also varies as a function adults would be more likely to engage in light nongeni- of the type of sexual partner (Grello et al.,2006). tal,heavy nongenital,and genital sexual behaviors with Finally,genital,heavy nongenital,and light nongenital romantic partners than with nonromantic partners of sexual behaviors are differentially related to representa- any type (Hla).Moreover,we expected that the fre- tions of romantic relationships (Jones Furman,2010). quencies of all types of sexual behavior would be greater These findings suggest that it is important to distinguish with romantic partners than with any type of nonro- among different types of sexual behaviors. mantic partners because romantic relationships in early adulthood are more intimate in nature (Furman Buhrmester,1992;HIb).Based on prior research Friends with Benefits (Grello et al.,2006;Manning et al.,2006),we also pre- dicted that a greater proportion of young adults would Recently,the idea of "friends with benefits"has engage in sexual behaviors with friends than with casual received considerable attention in the mass media (e.g., acquaintances (H2a).The frequencies of sexual beha- Denizet-Lewis,2004).This relationship is commonly viors,especially light sexual behaviors such as kissing, described by laypersons as friends engaging in sexual cuddling,and making out,were also expected to be behavior without a monogamous relationship or any greater in friendships because of the affectionate nature kind of commitment (see http://www.urbandictionary. of the relationships (H2b).The limited literature on com/define.php?term=friends+with+benefits).Social friends with benefits provided little basis for predictions, scientists have similarly described them as friends engag- but we expected fewer participants would report engag- ing in sex or sexual activity (e.g.,Bisson Levine,2009). ing in sexual behavior with friends with benefits than What is less clear.however,is whether friends with with friends or casual acquaintances because a signifi- benefits are typically seen as a distinct category of sexual cant proportion of sexual activity with a nonromantic partners-that is,it is not apparent if all friends one has partner only occurs on one occasion,whereas being engaged in sexual activity with are considered friends friends with benefits may require establishing a relation- with benefits;for example,being a friend with benefits ship that involves some ongoing opportunities for sexual may imply some ongoing opportunities for sexual beha- behavior (H3a).When young adults have friends with vior,rather than a single episode.Some types of sexual benefits,however,we expected the frequency of sexual activity behavior may also be necessary to be considered behavior with friends with benefits to be higher than a friend with benefits.In addition,it is unclear if it is even the frequencies with friends or casual acquaintances necessary to first be a friend in the traditional sense of a because of the ongoing opportunities with friends with friend to be considered a friend with benefits.For benefits (H3b). example,it is not apparent if a casual acquaintance could Past work has consistently found that males have be considered a friend with benefits or not.A clearer greater interest in sexual behavior with nonromantic understanding of the nature of friends with benefits is partners(see Okami Shackelford,2001).To date,how- needed. ever,distinctions among different types of nonromantic partners have not been made.Gender differences may be less pronounced in friendships than in casual acquaint- This Study anceships,as friendships entail some level of intimacy that encounters with casual acquaintances may not. The purpose of this study was to provide a detailed Thus,we predicted gender differences in sexual behavior examination of sexual behavior with different types of with casual acquaintances(H4a),but tendered no predic- partners.We first asked about sexual behavior with tions regarding gender differences with friends or friends romantic partners,friends,and casual acquaintances;we with benefits.Although not as well-documented as the 555
different partners. Grello et al. (2006), however, found that more affectionate sexual behavior (e.g., handholding, hugging, kissing, and massaging) occurred when they were friends than when they were acquaintances or strangers. Thus, the limited research suggests that sexual activity may vary across different kinds of nonromantic partners. Not only have most investigators failed to differentiate among categories of nonromantic partners, but they also have not typically distinguished among different types of sexual behaviors. Intercourse does not occur in approximately 60% of hookups (Paul et al., 2000). Different sexual behaviors involve different levels of risk of sexually transmitted diseases. The type of sexual behavior that commonly occurs also varies as a function of the type of sexual partner (Grello et al., 2006). Finally, genital, heavy nongenital, and light nongenital sexual behaviors are differentially related to representations of romantic relationships (Jones & Furman, 2010). These findings suggest that it is important to distinguish among different types of sexual behaviors. Friends with Benefits Recently, the idea of ‘‘friends with benefits’’ has received considerable attention in the mass media (e.g., Denizet-Lewis, 2004). This relationship is commonly described by laypersons as friends engaging in sexual behavior without a monogamous relationship or any kind of commitment (see http://www.urbandictionary. com/define.php?term=friends+with+benefits). Social scientists have similarly described them as friends engaging in sex or sexual activity (e.g., Bisson & Levine, 2009). What is less clear, however, is whether friends with benefits are typically seen as a distinct category of sexual partners—that is, it is not apparent if all friends one has engaged in sexual activity with are considered friends with benefits; for example, being a friend with benefits may imply some ongoing opportunities for sexual behavior, rather than a single episode. Some types of sexual activity behavior may also be necessary to be considered a friend with benefits. In addition, it is unclear if it is even necessary to first be a friend in the traditional sense of a friend to be considered a friend with benefits. For example, it is not apparent if a casual acquaintance could be considered a friend with benefits or not. A clearer understanding of the nature of friends with benefits is needed. This Study The purpose of this study was to provide a detailed examination of sexual behavior with different types of partners. We first asked about sexual behavior with romantic partners, friends, and casual acquaintances; we then asked about sexual behavior with friends with benefits (see rationale in the Methods section). We distinguished among types of sexual behavior: 1. ‘‘Light’’ nongenital acts (kissing on the lips, cuddling, and ‘‘making out’’). 2. ‘‘Heavy’’ nongenital acts (light petting, heavy petting, and dry sex). 3. Genital acts (oral sex, vaginal intercourse, and anal intercourse). Based on the existing literature (e.g., Grello et al., 2006; Manning et al., 2006), we predicted that young adults would be more likely to engage in light nongenital, heavy nongenital, and genital sexual behaviors with romantic partners than with nonromantic partners of any type (H1a). Moreover, we expected that the frequencies of all types of sexual behavior would be greater with romantic partners than with any type of nonromantic partners because romantic relationships in early adulthood are more intimate in nature (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992; H1b). Based on prior research (Grello et al., 2006; Manning et al., 2006), we also predicted that a greater proportion of young adults would engage in sexual behaviors with friends than with casual acquaintances (H2a). The frequencies of sexual behaviors, especially light sexual behaviors such as kissing, cuddling, and making out, were also expected to be greater in friendships because of the affectionate nature of the relationships (H2b). The limited literature on friends with benefits provided little basis for predictions, but we expected fewer participants would report engaging in sexual behavior with friends with benefits than with friends or casual acquaintances because a signifi- cant proportion of sexual activity with a nonromantic partner only occurs on one occasion, whereas being friends with benefits may require establishing a relationship that involves some ongoing opportunities for sexual behavior (H3a). When young adults have friends with benefits, however, we expected the frequency of sexual behavior with friends with benefits to be higher than the frequencies with friends or casual acquaintances because of the ongoing opportunities with friends with benefits (H3b). Past work has consistently found that males have greater interest in sexual behavior with nonromantic partners (see Okami & Shackelford, 2001). To date, however, distinctions among different types of nonromantic partners have not been made. Gender differences may be less pronounced in friendships than in casual acquaintanceships, as friendships entail some level of intimacy that encounters with casual acquaintances may not. Thus, we predicted gender differences in sexual behavior with casual acquaintances (H4a), but tendered no predictions regarding gender differences with friends or friends with benefits. Although not as well-documented as the SEXUAL PARTNERS 555
FURMAN AND SHAFFER gender differences with nonromantic partners,women who did and did not participate in Wave 5 did not differ appear to be more likely to engage in intercourse and on any of 18 primary demographic.adjustment,and have higher frequencies of intercourse with romantic romantic and sexual variables collected at Wave 1.For partners than men(Carver,Joyner,Udry,2003;Prince the purpose of this study,we limited the sample to the Bernard,1998).We expected that we would replicate Wave 5 participants who were not married,engaged,or these gender differences with romantic partners and find cohabiting with someone (N=163;86 men and 77 similar gender differences in the occurrence and fre- women). quency of light nongenital and heavy nongenital behavior With regard to sexual orientation,87%said they were with romantic partners(H4b). heterosexual(straight),whereas the remaining partici- Another purpose of the study was to obtain a better pants said they were bisexual,gay,lesbian,or question- understanding of the nature of friends with benefits. ing.We chose to retain the sexual minorities in the As previously noted,it is not clear how similar friends sample to be inclusive and because the majority of them with benefits are to other friends.Because the focus of reported that they were either bisexual or questioning relationships with friends with benefits appears to be their sexual identity. on sexual activity,we hypothesized that young adults Participants were financially compensated for com- would engage in fewer nonsexual activities with friends pleting the questionnaires.The confidentiality of the with benefits than with typical friends;at the same time, participants'data was protected by a Certificate of we hypothesized that they would engage in more non- Confidentiality issued by the U.S.Department of Health sexual activities with friends with benefits than with and Human Services. casual acquaintances because friends with benefits appear to be ongoing relationships(H5). Finally,we interviewed young adults to obtain a Measures better understanding about their conceptualization of Sexual behavior questionnaire.Participants were friends with benefits.We hypothesized that most would first asked about their sexual behavior in the last 12 require friends with benefits to be friends,and would months with three types of partners:(a)romantic part- require that there be an ongoing opportunity for sexual ners,(b)friends,and (c)casual acquaintances or some- behavior (vs.a one-time experience;H6). one they just met.The participants were told they were going to be asked about all three types in advance, and the order of the questions concerning the three rela- Method tionships was fixed to eliminate potential confusion of categories (e.g.,romantic partners are often considered Participants friends as well). After they had answered the questions about the first The participants were part of a longitudinal study three types of sexual partners,we asked them to answer a investigating the role of relationships with parents,peers, parallel set of questions about friends with benefits. and romantic partners on psychosocial adjustment in Because it was unclear how friends with benefits would adolescence and young adulthood.Two hundred 10th- be categorized and how distinct they were from other grade high school students(100 boys and 100 girls;mean categories,we indicated that the term can be defined in age=15.88 years;range=14-16 years old)were orig- different ways and asked participants to use their own inally recruited from a diverse range of neighborhoods definition of friends with benefits,even if their partners and schools in a large,Western,metropolitan area by in this category overlapped with some of their partners distributing brochures and sending letters to families in the categories they had answered about already.This residing in various zip codes and to students enrolled in strategy allowed us to examine how a term was naturally various schools in ethnically diverse neighborhoods. used and provided a means of obtaining information Designed to be relatively representative of the eth- about whom young adults consider to be friends with nicity of the United States,the sample was 11.5%African benefits.We also believed that our strategy would be less American,12.5%Hispanic,1.5%Native American,1% confusing to the participants than initially asking them Asian American,4%biracial,and 69.5%White (non- about all four categories when we expected that the Hispanic).The sample was of average intelligence and friend with benefits category overlapped with the other did not differ from national norms on 11 of 12 measures categories,especially friends.We also thought it would of adjustment (see Furman,Low,Ho,2009).In the be inappropriate to force the four categories to not over- fifth wave of data collection.which was collected in lap with each other when they were likely to overlap in 2005 through 2007,we asked about sexual activity with actuality;moreover,we thought it would be confusing different types of partners.At that time,participants ran- to ask participants about sexual behavior with friends ged in age from 19.32 to 21.93 years old (M=20.51 who were not friends with benefits,or to ask them about years);186(94 men and 92 women)of the original 200 friends with benefits who were not friends or casual participants took part in the Wave 5 assessment.Those acquaintances. 556
gender differences with nonromantic partners, women appear to be more likely to engage in intercourse and have higher frequencies of intercourse with romantic partners than men (Carver, Joyner, & Udry, 2003; Prince & Bernard, 1998). We expected that we would replicate these gender differences with romantic partners and find similar gender differences in the occurrence and frequency of light nongenital and heavy nongenital behavior with romantic partners (H4b). Another purpose of the study was to obtain a better understanding of the nature of friends with benefits. As previously noted, it is not clear how similar friends with benefits are to other friends. Because the focus of relationships with friends with benefits appears to be on sexual activity, we hypothesized that young adults would engage in fewer nonsexual activities with friends with benefits than with typical friends; at the same time, we hypothesized that they would engage in more nonsexual activities with friends with benefits than with casual acquaintances because friends with benefits appear to be ongoing relationships (H5). Finally, we interviewed young adults to obtain a better understanding about their conceptualization of friends with benefits. We hypothesized that most would require friends with benefits to be friends, and would require that there be an ongoing opportunity for sexual behavior (vs. a one-time experience; H6). Method Participants The participants were part of a longitudinal study investigating the role of relationships with parents, peers, and romantic partners on psychosocial adjustment in adolescence and young adulthood. Two hundred 10thgrade high school students (100 boys and 100 girls; mean age ¼ 15.88 years; range ¼ 14–16 years old) were originally recruited from a diverse range of neighborhoods and schools in a large, Western, metropolitan area by distributing brochures and sending letters to families residing in various zip codes and to students enrolled in various schools in ethnically diverse neighborhoods. Designed to be relatively representative of the ethnicity of the United States, the sample was 11.5% African American, 12.5% Hispanic, 1.5% Native American, 1% Asian American, 4% biracial, and 69.5% White (non– Hispanic). The sample was of average intelligence and did not differ from national norms on 11 of 12 measures of adjustment (see Furman, Low, & Ho, 2009). In the fifth wave of data collection, which was collected in 2005 through 2007, we asked about sexual activity with different types of partners. At that time, participants ranged in age from 19.32 to 21.93 years old (M ¼ 20.51 years); 186 (94 men and 92 women) of the original 200 participants took part in the Wave 5 assessment. Those who did and did not participate in Wave 5 did not differ on any of 18 primary demographic, adjustment, and romantic and sexual variables collected at Wave 1. For the purpose of this study, we limited the sample to the Wave 5 participants who were not married, engaged, or cohabiting with someone (N ¼ 163; 86 men and 77 women). With regard to sexual orientation, 87% said they were heterosexual (straight), whereas the remaining participants said they were bisexual, gay, lesbian, or questioning. We chose to retain the sexual minorities in the sample to be inclusive and because the majority of them reported that they were either bisexual or questioning their sexual identity. Participants were financially compensated for completing the questionnaires. The confidentiality of the participants’ data was protected by a Certificate of Confidentiality issued by the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Measures Sexual behavior questionnaire. Participants were first asked about their sexual behavior in the last 12 months with three types of partners: (a) romantic partners, (b) friends, and (c) casual acquaintances or someone they just met. The participants were told they were going to be asked about all three types in advance, and the order of the questions concerning the three relationships was fixed to eliminate potential confusion of categories (e.g., romantic partners are often considered friends as well). After they had answered the questions about the first three types of sexual partners, we asked them to answer a parallel set of questions about friends with benefits. Because it was unclear how friends with benefits would be categorized and how distinct they were from other categories, we indicated that the term can be defined in different ways and asked participants to use their own definition of friends with benefits, even if their partners in this category overlapped with some of their partners in the categories they had answered about already. This strategy allowed us to examine how a term was naturally used and provided a means of obtaining information about whom young adults consider to be friends with benefits. We also believed that our strategy would be less confusing to the participants than initially asking them about all four categories when we expected that the friend with benefits category overlapped with the other categories, especially friends. We also thought it would be inappropriate to force the four categories to not overlap with each other when they were likely to overlap in actuality; moreover, we thought it would be confusing to ask participants about sexual behavior with friends who were not friends with benefits, or to ask them about friends with benefits who were not friends or casual acquaintances. FURMAN AND SHAFFER 556
SEXUAL PARTNERS For each type of partner,participants were asked Results about the frequency of engaging in nine types of sexual behaviors during the last year:(a)three kinds of light Preliminary Analyses and Descriptive Information nongenital acts (kissing on the lips,cuddling,and All variables were examined to determine if the making out),(b)three kinds of heavy nongenital acts (light petting,heavy petting,and dry sex),and(c)three assumptions of univariate and multivariate analyses kinds of genital acts (oral sex,vaginal intercourse,and were met (Behrens,1997).Outliers were adjusted to fall anal intercourse).The distinctions among light non- 1.5 times the interquartile range below the 25th percen- genital,heavy nongenital,and genital acts were based tile or above the 75th percentile.All the resulting variables had acceptable levels of skew and kurtosis. on structural equation models examining the structure of sexual behavior (Jones Furman,2010).They rated the frequency of sexual activity using a scale ranging Occurrence of Sexual Behaviors with Four Types from 1 (not in the last 12 months)to 8 (almost every of Partners day or every day). Participants were also asked if they had commonly Table 2 presents the proportion of men and women engaged in each of 24 nonsexual activities with indivi- engaging in each level of sexual behavior with each of duals in each of the four relationship categories.Sample the four types of partners.These proportions include activities included drinking alcohol,watching TV,and both participants who engaged in additional forms of sharing something personal.The questions about friends sexual activity,as well as those who engaged in no more and casual acquaintances asked about all casual than that level of sexual activity;thus,the light nongeni- acquaintances and friends,not just sexual ones,so that tal proportions includes those who engaged in only light we could see if friends with benefits were similar to other nongenital activity and those who engaged in heavy casual acquaintances and friends.The sexual behavior nongenital or genital activity as well.(All participants questionnaire was administered by computer-assisted who reported engaging in genital sexual activity with a self-interviewing techniques to encourage participants particular type of partner had also reported engaging to respond honestly (Turner,Ku,Rogers,1998). in light nongenital and heavy nongenital sexual activity with that type of partner;similarly,all participants who reported engaging in heavy nongenital sexual activity Characteristics of friends with benefits.In light of with a particular type of partner had also reported the limited information regarding friends with benefits, engaging in light nongenital sexual activity with that we also asked participants a series of questions to clarify type of partner.) the nature of these relationships.Specifically,we asked We conducted the equivalent of two-way (Participant them whether friends with benefits are different from Gender x Partner Type)repeated-measures multivariate romantic partners,friends,and casual acquaintances analyses of variance (MANOVAs)for each level of (see the questions in Table 1).Responses were categor- sexual behavior using generalized hierarchical linear ized as yes,no,or qualified (e.g.,"it depends").We also modeling (for a description of the equivalence,see asked about the frequency of sexual encounters neces- Kenny,Bolger,Kashy,2002).Generalized hierarchi- sary to consider someone a friend with benefits.The cal linear modeling takes into account the nested nature questions regarding the characteristics of friends with of the data,including the dependency inherent in the benefits were not added until the first third of the data overlapping nature of the friends with benefits category. had been collected.The 109 participants who answered Unlike repeated-measures MANOVAs,generalized these questions did not differ from the other participants hierarchical linear modeling does not require ordinal on any of the primary variables of the study or in terms data and can be used to analyze proportional data by of gender and ethnicity. using a logit link function.In addition,it permits Table 1.Proportion (and n)of Participants'Answers to Questions about the Characteristics of Friends with Benefits Question Yes No Other 1.Are friends with benefits different from a romantic relationship? 97%(100) 3%(3) 0%(0) 3.Are they different from a casual sexual partner? 60%(66 37%(41) 3%(3) 7.Are friends with benefits different from other people you periodically hook up with? 58%(64) 41%(45) 0%(0) 2.Other than sexual behavior,are they different from friends? 27%(29) 73%(79) 0%(0) 4.Do they have to be a friend? 72%(79) 26%(28) 2%(2) 5.Could it be someone you don't know as well,such as a casual acquaintance or a stranger? 47%(51) 53%(58) 0%(0) 6.Would someone be a friend with benefits if you only engaged in sexual behavior with him or her once? 14%(15) 86%(94) 0%(0) Note.The number preceding the question refers to the order of the questions.The category of"other"answers refers to qualified ones that were not simple yes or no responses (e.g.,"it depends").Numbers slightly vary across questions because of technical problems 557
For each type of partner, participants were asked about the frequency of engaging in nine types of sexual behaviors during the last year: (a) three kinds of light nongenital acts (kissing on the lips, cuddling, and making out), (b) three kinds of heavy nongenital acts (light petting, heavy petting, and dry sex), and (c) three kinds of genital acts (oral sex, vaginal intercourse, and anal intercourse). The distinctions among light nongenital, heavy nongenital, and genital acts were based on structural equation models examining the structure of sexual behavior (Jones & Furman, 2010). They rated the frequency of sexual activity using a scale ranging from 1 (not in the last 12 months) to 8 (almost every day or every day). Participants were also asked if they had commonly engaged in each of 24 nonsexual activities with individuals in each of the four relationship categories. Sample activities included drinking alcohol, watching TV, and sharing something personal. The questions about friends and casual acquaintances asked about all casual acquaintances and friends, not just sexual ones, so that we could see if friends with benefits were similar to other casual acquaintances and friends. The sexual behavior questionnaire was administered by computer-assisted self-interviewing techniques to encourage participants to respond honestly (Turner, Ku, & Rogers, 1998). Characteristics of friends with benefits. In light of the limited information regarding friends with benefits, we also asked participants a series of questions to clarify the nature of these relationships. Specifically, we asked them whether friends with benefits are different from romantic partners, friends, and casual acquaintances (see the questions in Table 1). Responses were categorized as yes, no, or qualified (e.g., ‘‘it depends’’). We also asked about the frequency of sexual encounters necessary to consider someone a friend with benefits. The questions regarding the characteristics of friends with benefits were not added until the first third of the data had been collected. The 109 participants who answered these questions did not differ from the other participants on any of the primary variables of the study or in terms of gender and ethnicity. Results Preliminary Analyses and Descriptive Information All variables were examined to determine if the assumptions of univariate and multivariate analyses were met (Behrens, 1997). Outliers were adjusted to fall 1.5 times the interquartile range below the 25th percentile or above the 75th percentile. All the resulting variables had acceptable levels of skew and kurtosis. Occurrence of Sexual Behaviors with Four Types of Partners Table 2 presents the proportion of men and women engaging in each level of sexual behavior with each of the four types of partners. These proportions include both participants who engaged in additional forms of sexual activity, as well as those who engaged in no more than that level of sexual activity; thus, the light nongenital proportions includes those who engaged in only light nongenital activity and those who engaged in heavy nongenital or genital activity as well. (All participants who reported engaging in genital sexual activity with a particular type of partner had also reported engaging in light nongenital and heavy nongenital sexual activity with that type of partner; similarly, all participants who reported engaging in heavy nongenital sexual activity with a particular type of partner had also reported engaging in light nongenital sexual activity with that type of partner.) We conducted the equivalent of two-way (Participant Gender Partner Type) repeated-measures multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) for each level of sexual behavior using generalized hierarchical linear modeling (for a description of the equivalence, see Kenny, Bolger, & Kashy, 2002). Generalized hierarchical linear modeling takes into account the nested nature of the data, including the dependency inherent in the overlapping nature of the friends with benefits category. Unlike repeated-measures MANOVAs, generalized hierarchical linear modeling does not require ordinal data and can be used to analyze proportional data by using a logit link function. In addition, it permits Table 1. Proportion (and n) of Participants’ Answers to Questions about the Characteristics of Friends with Benefits Question Yes No Other 1. Are friends with benefits different from a romantic relationship? 97% (100) 3% (3) 0% (0) 3. Are they different from a casual sexual partner? 60% (66) 37% (41) 3% (3) 7. Are friends with benefits different from other people you periodically hook up with? 58% (64) 41% (45) 0% (0) 2. Other than sexual behavior, are they different from friends? 27% (29) 73% (79) 0% (0) 4. Do they have to be a friend? 72% (79) 26% (28) 2% (2) 5. Could it be someone you don’t know as well, such as a casual acquaintance or a stranger? 47% (51) 53% (58) 0% (0) 6. Would someone be a friend with benefits if you only engaged in sexual behavior with him or her once? 14% (15) 86% (94) 0% (0) Note. The number preceding the question refers to the order of the questions. The category of ‘‘other’’ answers refers to qualified ones that were not simple yes or no responses (e.g., ‘‘it depends’’). Numbers slightly vary across questions because of technical problems. SEXUAL PARTNERS 557
FURMAN AND SHAFFER Table 2.Proportions of Participants Engaging in Sexual To determine if there was a significant omnibus effect Behaviors with Different Types of Partners of the interaction between gender and type of partner, Friend we compared the full model with a two main effects Romantic Casual with model,which did not contain the terms that reflect an Variable Partner Friend Acquaintance Benefits interaction in the Level 2 equations:711 (Gender),721 (Gender),and 731(Gender).If the deviance of the full Light nongenital:Women 861 .51, .452 293 model was significantly smaller than the deviance of Light nongenital:Men .711 .432 .641 292 Heavy nongenital:Women 811 .202 242 272 the two main effects model (i.e.,the fit was better),it Heavy nongenital:Men .691 153 332 2623 would indicate a significant interaction between gender Genital:Women .771 182 212 242 and type of partner existed.If the deviance of the full Genital:Men .621 .142 .302 232 model was not significantly smaller than the two main Note.Different subscripts for different relationships in the same row effects models,it would indicate there was not a signifi- indicate that the proportions for that type of sexual behavior signifi- cant interaction between gender and type of partner. cantly differ between the two relationships. To determine if there was a significant effect of gender,we compared the deviance of the two main effects model with the deviance of a partner type only missing data;subsequent analyses examine the frequen- cies of sexual behavior with different types of partners. model,which only contained the partner effects terms. If the deviance of the two main effects model was signifi- If a participant did not have a particular type of sexual cantly smaller than the partner type only models,it partner,the participant's scores for that type of partner would indicate there was a significant gender effect. were treated as missing scores.Less than 15%of the To determine if there was a significant main effect of participants had engaged in sexual behavior with all four types of partners;thus,the analyses of the fre- partner,we compared the deviance of the two main quencies would not be possible if complete data were effects models with the deviance of a gender only model, which only contained the gender term.If the deviance of required. An example of a full model in generalized hierarchical the two main effects model was significantly smaller than the gender only model,it would indicate there linear modeling was as follows: was a significant partner effect. We found significant main effects of partner type for Level 1 Model: all levels of sexual behavior (all differences in deviances >104.14,ps fits;finally,Cp reflects a contrast between romantic 48.90,ps<.001).We then examined the specific partners and casual acquaintances,on the one hand, dummy-variable contrasts of pairs of means.Consistent and friends and friends with benefits.on the other hand. with Hla,these analyses revealed that both men and The outcome Y is whether a type of sexual behavior women were almost always more likely to engage in each occurred or not. level of sexual behavior with romantic partners than with In traditional MANOVAs,the significance of main friends,casual acquaintances,or friends with benefits. effects and interactions are obtained as part of the stan- The one noteworthy exception is that men were as likely dard output.To determine if an interaction or main to engage in light nongenital sexual behavior with casual effect is significant in generalized hierarchical linear acquaintances as with romantic partners.Contrary to modeling,however,it is necessary to compare the fit H2a,men were also significantly more likely to engage (deviance)of pairs of models that contain or do not in light nongenital and heavy nongenital sexual behavior contain the terms of interest. with casual acquaintances than with friends.Consistent 558
missing data; subsequent analyses examine the frequencies of sexual behavior with different types of partners. If a participant did not have a particular type of sexual partner, the participant’s scores for that type of partner were treated as missing scores. Less than 15% of the participants had engaged in sexual behavior with all four types of partners; thus, the analyses of the frequencies would not be possible if complete data were required. An example of a full model in generalized hierarchical linear modeling was as follows: Level 1 Model: LogitðYÞ ¼ b0i þ b1iCra þ b2iCfb þ b3iCra þ b2iCrafb þ ej Level 2 Model: b0i ¼ c00 þ c01 ðGenderÞ þ u0i b1i ¼ c10 þ c11 ðGenderÞ b2i ¼ c20 þ c21 ðGenderÞ b3i ¼ c30 þ c31 ðGenderÞ This model contained three orthogonal dummy variable contrasts: Cr–a represents a contrast between romantic partners and casual acquaintances; Cf–b represents a contrast between friends and friends with bene- fits; finally, Crp–fb reflects a contrast between romantic partners and casual acquaintances, on the one hand, and friends and friends with benefits, on the other hand. The outcome Y is whether a type of sexual behavior occurred or not. In traditional MANOVAs, the significance of main effects and interactions are obtained as part of the standard output. To determine if an interaction or main effect is significant in generalized hierarchical linear modeling, however, it is necessary to compare the fit (deviance) of pairs of models that contain or do not contain the terms of interest. To determine if there was a significant omnibus effect of the interaction between gender and type of partner, we compared the full model with a two main effects model, which did not contain the terms that reflect an interaction in the Level 2 equations: c11 (Gender), c21 (Gender), and c31 (Gender). If the deviance of the full model was significantly smaller than the deviance of the two main effects model (i.e., the fit was better), it would indicate a significant interaction between gender and type of partner existed. If the deviance of the full model was not significantly smaller than the two main effects models, it would indicate there was not a signifi- cant interaction between gender and type of partner. To determine if there was a significant effect of gender, we compared the deviance of the two main effects model with the deviance of a partner type only model, which only contained the partner effects terms. If the deviance of the two main effects model was signifi- cantly smaller than the partner type only models, it would indicate there was a significant gender effect. To determine if there was a significant main effect of partner, we compared the deviance of the two main effects models with the deviance of a gender only model, which only contained the gender term. If the deviance of the two main effects model was significantly smaller than the gender only model, it would indicate there was a significant partner effect. We found significant main effects of partner type for all levels of sexual behavior (all differences in deviances > 104.14, ps 48.90, ps < .001). We then examined the specific dummy-variable contrasts of pairs of means. Consistent with H1a, these analyses revealed that both men and women were almost always more likely to engage in each level of sexual behavior with romantic partners than with friends, casual acquaintances, or friends with benefits. The one noteworthy exception is that men were as likely to engage in light nongenital sexual behavior with casual acquaintances as with romantic partners. Contrary to H2a, men were also significantly more likely to engage in light nongenital and heavy nongenital sexual behavior with casual acquaintances than with friends. Consistent Table 2. Proportions of Participants Engaging in Sexual Behaviors with Different Types of Partners Variable Romantic Partner Friend Casual Acquaintance Friend with Benefits Light nongenital: Women .861 .512 .452 .293 Light nongenital: Men .711 .432 .641 .292 Heavy nongenital: Women .811 .202 .242 .272 Heavy nongenital: Men .691 .153 .332 .2623 Genital: Women .771 .182 .212 .242 Genital: Men .621 .142 .302 .232 Note. Different subscripts for different relationships in the same row indicate that the proportions for that type of sexual behavior signifi- cantly differ between the two relationships. FURMAN AND SHAFFER 558
SEXUAL PARTNERS with H3a,men were also significantly more likely to Consistent with HIb,follow-up comparisons revealed engage in light nongenital behavior with casual acquain- that young adults engaged in all three levels of sexual tances than with friends with benefits.On the other hand. behavior more frequently with romantic partners than women were significantly less likely to engage in light with friends,casual acquaintances,or friends with nongenital sexual behavior with friends with benefits benefits.Consistent with H3b,they also engaged in than with friends or casual acquaintances;otherwise, each kind of sexual behavior more frequently with the proportions for friends,casual acquaintances,and friends with benefits than with friends or casual acquain- friends with benefits did not differ for women. tances.Contrary to H4,neither gender nor the interac- We also examined gender differences by comparing tion between gender and relationship type were the deviance of a gender only effect model for each type significant. of partner with a random intercept model for each type of partner.Consistent with H4a,men were significantly Nonsexual Behavior with Different Partners more likely to engage in light nongenital sexual behavior with casual acquaintances than women were;contrary to We were also interested in the extent of nonsexual this hypothesis,no differences were found in heavy behavior with friends with benefits compared to other nongenital or genital sexual behavior.Consistent with partners.Once again,scores for a particular type of H4a,women were significantly more likely to engage in relationship were considered missing if the participant light nongenital and genital sexual behavior with roman- did not have that type of relationship,so as to avoid con- tic partners than men were.No gender differences were founding differences in the proportions of individuals hav- found with respect to sexual behavior with friends or ing a particular type of relationship and differences in the friends with benefits. range of activities of those who had these relationships. Table 4 presents the proportion of activities participants Frequencies of Sexual Behaviors with Different Partners typically engaged in with each type of partner.We conduc- ted the mixed-model analogue of repeated-measures Next,we examined the frequencies of sexual beha- MANOVAs in which type of partner(romantic,friend, viors with different partners.If a participant did not have casual acquaintance,and friend with benefits)was a a particular type of sexual partner,the participant's within-subjects factor and gender was a between-subject scores of no sexual behavior for that type of partner were factor.This analysis revealed significant effects of partner treated as missing scores.If these scores of no sexual type (difference in deviance=352.45,p258.30,ps<.001). people with whom participants engaged in sexual Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations of Frequencies of Sexual Behaviors with Different Types of Partners Romantic Partner Friend Casual Acquaintance Friend with Benefits Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD Light nongenital:Women 6.781 1.38 2.483 1.47 2.383 0.99 4.182 1.59 Light nongenital:Men 6.671 1.45 2.583 1.52 2.483 1.09 4.132 1.69 Heavy nongenital:Women 5.49 1.79 1.54 0.90 1.513 0.53 2.412 0.50 Heavy nongenital:Men 5.861 1.75 1.45 0.79 1.563 0.57 2.322 0.57 Genital:Women 3.93 1.65 1.273 0.50 1.273 0.38 2.412 1.11 Genital:Men 3.85 1.80 1.273 0.50 1.433 0.56 2.532 1.25 Note.Different subscripts reflect significant differences among types of relationships(combined across gender). 559
with H3a, men were also significantly more likely to engage in light nongenital behavior with casual acquaintances than with friends with benefits. On the other hand, women were significantly less likely to engage in light nongenital sexual behavior with friends with benefits than with friends or casual acquaintances; otherwise, the proportions for friends, casual acquaintances, and friends with benefits did not differ for women. We also examined gender differences by comparing the deviance of a gender only effect model for each type of partner with a random intercept model for each type of partner. Consistent with H4a, men were significantly more likely to engage in light nongenital sexual behavior with casual acquaintances than women were; contrary to this hypothesis, no differences were found in heavy nongenital or genital sexual behavior. Consistent with H4a, women were significantly more likely to engage in light nongenital and genital sexual behavior with romantic partners than men were. No gender differences were found with respect to sexual behavior with friends or friends with benefits. Frequencies of Sexual Behaviors with Different Partners Next, we examined the frequencies of sexual behaviors with different partners. If a participant did not have a particular type of sexual partner, the participant’s scores of no sexual behavior for that type of partner were treated as missing scores. If these scores of no sexual behavior had been included, differences in frequencies of sexual behavior with different partners could result from differences in the proportions of individuals having a particular type of sexual partner, as well as differences in the frequencies of sexual behavior with different types of partners for those who had those kinds of sexual partners. For each of the three levels of sexual behaviors, we conducted hierarchical linear modeling analyses similar to the prior ones, except that the scores did not need to be transformed with a logit function, as they were continuous scores. Table 3 presents the frequencies of each level of sexual behavior in each of the four types of relationships. Significant main effects of type of relationship were found for all three levels of sexual behavior (differences in deviance > 258.30, ps < .001). Consistent with H1b, follow-up comparisons revealed that young adults engaged in all three levels of sexual behavior more frequently with romantic partners than with friends, casual acquaintances, or friends with benefits. Consistent with H3b, they also engaged in each kind of sexual behavior more frequently with friends with benefits than with friends or casual acquaintances. Contrary to H4, neither gender nor the interaction between gender and relationship type were significant. Nonsexual Behavior with Different Partners We were also interested in the extent of nonsexual behavior with friends with benefits compared to other partners. Once again, scores for a particular type of relationship were considered missing if the participant did not have that type of relationship, so as to avoid confounding differences in the proportions of individuals having a particular type of relationship and differences in the range of activities of those who had these relationships. Table 4 presents the proportion of activities participants typically engaged in with each type of partner. We conducted the mixed-model analogue of repeated-measures MANOVAs in which type of partner (romantic, friend, casual acquaintance, and friend with benefits) was a within-subjects factor and gender was a between-subject factor. This analysis revealed significant effects of partner type (difference in deviance¼ 352.45, p < .001) and gender (difference in deviance¼ 4.24, p ¼ .04), which were quali- fied by a significant interaction between partner type and gender (difference in deviance¼ 8.23, p ¼ .04). Consistent with H5, follow-up analyses revealed that the proportion of activities significantly differed among all four groups for women, with the highest proportion of activities with friends, then romantic partners, then friends with benefits, and finally casual acquaintances. For men, the highest proportions were with romantic partners and friends, then friends with benefits, and finally, casual acquaintances. Configurations of Sexual Partners Table 5 presents the different configurations of people with whom participants engaged in sexual Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations of Frequencies of Sexual Behaviors with Different Types of Partners Romantic Partner Friend Casual Acquaintance Friend with Benefits Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD Light nongenital: Women 6.781 1.38 2.483 1.47 2.383 0.99 4.182 1.59 Light nongenital: Men 6.671 1.45 2.583 1.52 2.483 1.09 4.132 1.69 Heavy nongenital: Women 5.491 1.79 1.543 0.90 1.513 0.53 2.412 0.50 Heavy nongenital: Men 5.861 1.75 1.453 0.79 1.563 0.57 2.322 0.57 Genital: Women 3.931 1.65 1.273 0.50 1.273 0.38 2.412 1.11 Genital: Men 3.851 1.80 1.273 0.50 1.433 0.56 2.532 1.25 Note. Different subscripts reflect significant differences among types of relationships (combined across gender). SEXUAL PARTNERS 559
FURMAN AND SHAFFER Table 4.Mean Proportion of Nonsexual Activities Engaged It also does not seem necessary to be a friend to be in with Different Types of Parters considered a friend with benefits.Only 19 of the 37 Romantic Casual Friend individuals who reported engaging in genital sexual Gender Partner Friend Acquaintance with Benefits behavior with a friend with benefits said they had engaged in such behavior with a friend.Although some Women .661 .7324 334 .483 friends with benefits may only be casual acquaintances, Men .611 641b 323 452 only 21 of the 42 who had engaged in genital sexual Note.Different subscripts reflect significant differences among types of behavior with a casual acquaintance reported engaging relationships,and different letters indicate gender differences in parti- in genital sexual behavior with a friend with benefits. cular relationships. Thus,it does not seem necessary for a friend with benefits to be a friend,but significant sexual activity behavior.An examination of the frequencies of these with a friend seems more likely to be considered a friend configurations can provide information regarding the with benefits than similar activity with a casual characteristics of friends with benefits.Only 38 of the acquaintance-that is,19 of 26 friends were,whereas 76 individuals who reported engaging in light nongenital only 21 of 42 casual acquaintances were. sexual behavior with a friend indicated that they had Finally,participants were asked if their friends with engaged in light nongenital sexual behavior with a friend benefits were friends or casual acquaintances;74% with benefits.Thus,simply engaging in some form of (n=35)said they were friends,4%(n=2)said they were sexual behavior with a friend may not be sufficient for casual acquaintances,and 21%(n=10)said they that friend to be considered to be a friend with benefits included both friends and casual acquaintances. as no more than one half of such friends are considered friends with benefits.On the other hand.20 of the 28 individuals who reported having engaged in heavy non- Characteristics of Friends with Benefits genital sexual behavior with a friend reported having Table I presents the participants'answers to the engaged in heavy nongenital sexual behavior with a questions concerning the characteristics of friends with friend with benefits.Similarly,19 of the 26 individuals benefits.Almost all (97%)thought that friends with who engaged in genital sexual behavior with a friend benefits were different from romantic partners.The reported engaging in genital sexual behavior with a majority also thought that they were different from a friend with benefits.Thus,if one has engaged in signifi- casual sex partner(60%)or someone you periodically cant sexual behavior with a friend,the friend is likely to hookup with (58%).Most(79%)did not view them as be considered a friend with benefits different from friends apart from sexual behavior,and most (72%)thought that they had to be friends.On Table 5.Proportion of Participants Having Different the other hand,approximately one half thought they Configurations of Sexual Partners could be someone you did not know well(47%).Most (86%)thought that you would not be a friend with ben- Type of Sexual Behavior efits if you had only engaged in sexual behavior with Light NG Heavy NG someone once.Finally,we asked participants how many Configuration of Sexual Partners or More or More Genital times they had to engage in sexual behavior to be con- sidered a friend with benefits.The most common Romantic,friend,acquaintance, 27 13 12 friend with benefits responses were "not a certain amount,just whenever Romantic,friend,acquaintance 18 they want to'”(23%),“more than once'”(16%),“once Romantic,friend,friend with 3 or twice a month”(l6%),and“on a regular basis'” benefits (15%).Consistent with their earlier answers,only 12% Romantic,friend 0 0 thought once was sufficient. Romantic,acquaintance,friend 8 6 with benefits Romantic,acquaintance 8 14 14 Romantic,friend with benefits 2 13 10 Discussion Romantic 41 66 63 Friend,acquaintance,friend with 6 2 2 This study underscores the importance of examining benefits the relational context in which sexual behavior occurs. Friend,acquaintance 3 3 Friend,friend with benefits 2 2 Sexual behavior with romantic partners substantially Friend differed from sexual behavior with nonromantic part- Acquaintance,friend with benefits 0 1 ners.Moreover,differences occurred among the three Acquaintance 5 2 types of nonromantic sexual partners,both in terms of Friend with benefits 0 0 Nobody 27 37 prevalence and frequency of sexual behaviors with different partners.The pattern of differences in the Note.NG=nongenital sexual behavior with the different partners also varied 560
behavior. An examination of the frequencies of these configurations can provide information regarding the characteristics of friends with benefits. Only 38 of the 76 individuals who reported engaging in light nongenital sexual behavior with a friend indicated that they had engaged in light nongenital sexual behavior with a friend with benefits. Thus, simply engaging in some form of sexual behavior with a friend may not be sufficient for that friend to be considered to be a friend with benefits, as no more than one half of such friends are considered friends with benefits. On the other hand, 20 of the 28 individuals who reported having engaged in heavy nongenital sexual behavior with a friend reported having engaged in heavy nongenital sexual behavior with a friend with benefits. Similarly, 19 of the 26 individuals who engaged in genital sexual behavior with a friend reported engaging in genital sexual behavior with a friend with benefits. Thus, if one has engaged in signifi- cant sexual behavior with a friend, the friend is likely to be considered a friend with benefits. It also does not seem necessary to be a friend to be considered a friend with benefits. Only 19 of the 37 individuals who reported engaging in genital sexual behavior with a friend with benefits said they had engaged in such behavior with a friend. Although some friends with benefits may only be casual acquaintances, only 21 of the 42 who had engaged in genital sexual behavior with a casual acquaintance reported engaging in genital sexual behavior with a friend with benefits. Thus, it does not seem necessary for a friend with benefits to be a friend, but significant sexual activity with a friend seems more likely to be considered a friend with benefits than similar activity with a casual acquaintance—that is, 19 of 26 friends were, whereas only 21 of 42 casual acquaintances were. Finally, participants were asked if their friends with benefits were friends or casual acquaintances; 74% (n ¼ 35) said they were friends, 4% (n ¼ 2) said they were casual acquaintances, and 21% (n ¼ 10) said they included both friends and casual acquaintances. Characteristics of Friends with Benefits Table 1 presents the participants’ answers to the questions concerning the characteristics of friends with benefits. Almost all (97%) thought that friends with benefits were different from romantic partners. The majority also thought that they were different from a casual sex partner (60%) or someone you periodically hookup with (58%). Most (79%) did not view them as different from friends apart from sexual behavior, and most (72%) thought that they had to be friends. On the other hand, approximately one half thought they could be someone you did not know well (47%). Most (86%) thought that you would not be a friend with benefits if you had only engaged in sexual behavior with someone once. Finally, we asked participants how many times they had to engage in sexual behavior to be considered a friend with benefits. The most common responses were ‘‘not a certain amount, just whenever they want to’’ (23%), ‘‘more than once’’ (16%), ‘‘once or twice a month’’ (16%), and ‘‘on a regular basis’’ (15%). Consistent with their earlier answers, only 12% thought once was sufficient. Discussion This study underscores the importance of examining the relational context in which sexual behavior occurs. Sexual behavior with romantic partners substantially differed from sexual behavior with nonromantic partners. Moreover, differences occurred among the three types of nonromantic sexual partners, both in terms of prevalence and frequency of sexual behaviors with different partners. The pattern of differences in the sexual behavior with the different partners also varied Table 4. Mean Proportion of Nonsexual Activities Engaged in with Different Types of Partners Gender Romantic Partner Friend Casual Acquaintance Friend with Benefits Women .661 .732a .334 .483 Men .611 .641b .323 .452 Note. Different subscripts reflect significant differences among types of relationships, and different letters indicate gender differences in particular relationships. Table 5. Proportion of Participants Having Different Configurations of Sexual Partners Type of Sexual Behavior Configuration of Sexual Partners Light NG or More Heavy NG or More Genital Romantic, friend, acquaintance, friend with benefits 27 13 12 Romantic, friend, acquaintance 18 3 3 Romantic, friend, friend with benefits 3 33 Romantic, friend 8 0 0 Romantic, acquaintance, friend with benefits 5 86 Romantic, acquaintance 18 14 14 Romantic, friend with benefits 3 13 10 Romantic 41 66 63 Friend, acquaintance, friend with benefits 6 22 Friend, acquaintance 8 3 3 Friend, friend with benefits 1 2 2 Friend 3 2 1 Acquaintance, friend with benefits 0 1 1 Acquaintance 5 2 1 Friend with benefits 0 0 1 Nobody 11 27 37 Note. NG ¼ nongenital. FURMAN AND SHAFFER 560
SEXUAL PARTNERS as a function of the level of sexual behavior,under- behaviors with a casual acquaintance than with a friend scoring the importance of examining that dimension as or friend with benefits.When one examines the well.Finally,the data obtained from the questionnaires frequency of such behavior among those who had a and the interviews provided us a better picture of the particular type of sexual partner,a different picture nature of relationships with friends with benefits. arises.As hypothesized,both genders engaged in all Consistent with our hypotheses,young adults were types of sexual behavior more often with friends with more likely to have engaged in sexual behavior with benefits than with either friends or casual acquaintances romantic partners than with nonromantic partners of Such differences might have occurred because young any kind.In fact,twice as many young adults reported adults are more willing to engage in such behaviors with engaging in heavy nongenital and genital sexual beha- friends with benefits,or they may have greater opportu- vior with romantic partners than with any of the other nities to engage in such behaviors if the periods of sexual three types of partners.The pattern is even more striking activity with friends with benefits are longer lasting than when one examines the frequency of sexual behavior those with friends or casual acquaintances.Contrary to with different partners.In all cases,the frequencies were our hypotheses,young adults were not more likely to substantially greater with romantic partners than with engage in sexual behaviors with friends than casual any of the other types of partners.It may be that sexual acquaintances.Grello et al.(2006)found such differ- activity occurs more often during a particular time span ences in affectionate behaviors(handholding,hugging, in romantic relationships because of the level of inti- kissing,and massaging).Perhaps these differences are macy or expectations regarding sexual activity in these more likely to occur in behaviors with ambiguous sexual relationships.It may also be that romantic relationships connotations,such as many of those Grello et al.exam- are longer lasting than the typical periods of sexual ined.In any case,it is clear that the characteristics of activity in friendships,acquaintanceships,or friendships sexual behaviors with the three types of nonromantic with benefits.In any case,depictions of young adults' partners differ. sexuality in the mass media have often emphasized These findings also underscore the importance of nonromantic contexts (e.g.,Denizet-Lewis,2004),but examining different levels of sexual activity in relation- romantic relationships are,in fact,the most typical ships,and not just examining sexual intercourse.The context for sexual activity. data on the proportion of participants engaging in dif- At the same time,sexual behavior with a nonroman- ferent sexual behaviors suggests that nongenital sexual tic partner was very common,just as prior research has activity may sometimes occur without genital activity, found (Elo et al.,1999;Grello et al.,2006;Manning especially with nonromantic partners.These findings et al.,2000,2005;Paul et al.,2000).A summation of are consistent with prior work,which also found that the different configurations of sexual partners presented only 50%of college students'hookups involved oral in Table 5 reveals that 66%had engaged in some form of sex or intercourse (England et al.,2008). sexual behavior with a nonromantic partner of some Sometimes parallel findings were found for the differ- type,whereas 81%had done so with a romantic partner; ent levels of sexual behavior,but sometimes comparisons 49%of the participants had engaged in heavy nongenital among the different types of nonromantic partners behavior with a nonromantic partner,whereas 80%had varied as a function of level.For example,more women done so with a romantic partner;finally,37%had engaged in light nongenital sexual activity with a friend engaged in oral sex or intercourse with a nonromantic or a casual acquaintance than with a friend with benefits. partner,whereas 73%had engaged in such sexual The proportion of women engaging in heavy nongenital behavior with a romantic partner.It is important to or genital sexual behavior with a friend or casual remember that these numbers refer to sexual activity acquaintance was substantially lower and comparable during the last year.Thus,these numbers are likely to to the proportions with a friend with benefits.This pat- underestimate the lifetime prevalence of sexual activity tern of results suggests that,in some instances,women with a nonromantic partner and overestimate the preva- may engage in some limited types of sexual activity with lence at any specific time.In a related vein,the data also a friend or casual acquaintance.Boundaries regarding do not provide information regarding the proportion of heavy sexual activity may be more likely to be present participants who had multiple sexual partners at the in these relationships,particularly friendships.Alterna- same time.Sexual activity with a nonromantic partner tively,the light sexual activity may have only occurred may have occurred when one did not have a romantic once or twice with a friend or casual acquaintance,and partner;in some instances,however,it probably did may not have evolved into more intense sexual activity occur simultaneously These results also underscore the importance of Gender Effects differentiating among various types of nonromantic partners.As predicted,more women engaged in light Consistent with our hypotheses and prior work nongenital sexual behavior with a friend than with (Carver et al..2003:Prince Bernard,1998),women a friend with benefits.More men engaged in such were more likely to have engaged in genital sexual 561
as a function of the level of sexual behavior, underscoring the importance of examining that dimension as well. Finally, the data obtained from the questionnaires and the interviews provided us a better picture of the nature of relationships with friends with benefits. Consistent with our hypotheses, young adults were more likely to have engaged in sexual behavior with romantic partners than with nonromantic partners of any kind. In fact, twice as many young adults reported engaging in heavy nongenital and genital sexual behavior with romantic partners than with any of the other three types of partners. The pattern is even more striking when one examines the frequency of sexual behavior with different partners. In all cases, the frequencies were substantially greater with romantic partners than with any of the other types of partners. It may be that sexual activity occurs more often during a particular time span in romantic relationships because of the level of intimacy or expectations regarding sexual activity in these relationships. It may also be that romantic relationships are longer lasting than the typical periods of sexual activity in friendships, acquaintanceships, or friendships with benefits. In any case, depictions of young adults’ sexuality in the mass media have often emphasized nonromantic contexts (e.g., Denizet-Lewis, 2004), but romantic relationships are, in fact, the most typical context for sexual activity. At the same time, sexual behavior with a nonromantic partner was very common, just as prior research has found (Elo et al., 1999; Grello et al., 2006; Manning et al., 2000, 2005; Paul et al., 2000). A summation of the different configurations of sexual partners presented in Table 5 reveals that 66% had engaged in some form of sexual behavior with a nonromantic partner of some type, whereas 81% had done so with a romantic partner; 49% of the participants had engaged in heavy nongenital behavior with a nonromantic partner, whereas 80% had done so with a romantic partner; finally, 37% had engaged in oral sex or intercourse with a nonromantic partner, whereas 73% had engaged in such sexual behavior with a romantic partner. It is important to remember that these numbers refer to sexual activity during the last year. Thus, these numbers are likely to underestimate the lifetime prevalence of sexual activity with a nonromantic partner and overestimate the prevalence at any specific time. In a related vein, the data also do not provide information regarding the proportion of participants who had multiple sexual partners at the same time. Sexual activity with a nonromantic partner may have occurred when one did not have a romantic partner; in some instances, however, it probably did occur simultaneously. These results also underscore the importance of differentiating among various types of nonromantic partners. As predicted, more women engaged in light nongenital sexual behavior with a friend than with a friend with benefits. More men engaged in such behaviors with a casual acquaintance than with a friend or friend with benefits. When one examines the frequency of such behavior among those who had a particular type of sexual partner, a different picture arises. As hypothesized, both genders engaged in all types of sexual behavior more often with friends with benefits than with either friends or casual acquaintances. Such differences might have occurred because young adults are more willing to engage in such behaviors with friends with benefits, or they may have greater opportunities to engage in such behaviors if the periods of sexual activity with friends with benefits are longer lasting than those with friends or casual acquaintances. Contrary to our hypotheses, young adults were not more likely to engage in sexual behaviors with friends than casual acquaintances. Grello et al. (2006) found such differences in affectionate behaviors (handholding, hugging, kissing, and massaging). Perhaps these differences are more likely to occur in behaviors with ambiguous sexual connotations, such as many of those Grello et al. examined. In any case, it is clear that the characteristics of sexual behaviors with the three types of nonromantic partners differ. These findings also underscore the importance of examining different levels of sexual activity in relationships, and not just examining sexual intercourse. The data on the proportion of participants engaging in different sexual behaviors suggests that nongenital sexual activity may sometimes occur without genital activity, especially with nonromantic partners. These findings are consistent with prior work, which also found that only 50% of college students’ hookups involved oral sex or intercourse (England et al., 2008). Sometimes parallel findings were found for the different levels of sexual behavior, but sometimes comparisons among the different types of nonromantic partners varied as a function of level. For example, more women engaged in light nongenital sexual activity with a friend or a casual acquaintance than with a friend with benefits. The proportion of women engaging in heavy nongenital or genital sexual behavior with a friend or casual acquaintance was substantially lower and comparable to the proportions with a friend with benefits. This pattern of results suggests that, in some instances, women may engage in some limited types of sexual activity with a friend or casual acquaintance. Boundaries regarding heavy sexual activity may be more likely to be present in these relationships, particularly friendships. Alternatively, the light sexual activity may have only occurred once or twice with a friend or casual acquaintance, and may not have evolved into more intense sexual activity. Gender Effects Consistent with our hypotheses and prior work (Carver et al., 2003; Prince & Bernard, 1998), women were more likely to have engaged in genital sexual SEXUAL PARTNERS 561
FURMAN AND SHAFFER behavior with a romantic partner in the last year than are,on average,older than adolescent males'partners, men were.This study extends this work by showing which might account for why a higher percentage of similar gender differences in light nongenital sexual adolescent females have engaged in intercourse in behavior with a romantic partner.Prior work has found romantic relationships than males have(Carver et al., that men are more likely to engage in sexual behavior 2003). with a nonromantic partner(see Okami Shackelford, 2001).These findings,however,provide a more nuanced picture of gender differences in sexual activity with Friends with Benefits nonromantic partners.Men were more likely to engage This study provides some insight into the nature of in light nongenital sexual activity with a casual acquaint- friends with benefits.Like many vernacular categories. ance,but they were not more likely to engage in sexual full agreement did not exist about the defining charac- behaviors with either friends or friends with benefits, teristics,but there was a reasonable level of consensus where the level of intimacy is greater.In fact,the propor- regarding several features.First,consistent with prior tions of women engaging in the various sexual behaviors research (Bisson Levine,2009),most participants with these partners were at least as high as those of men. thought that one would not be a friend with benefits These findings suggest that the commonly observed unless sexual behavior had occurred on more than one gender differences in nonromantic sexual behavior may occasion.Consistent with this idea,frequencies of sexual principally reflect sexual experiences with casual behavior with friends with benefits were greater than acquaintances or people whom they just met. with friends or casual acquaintances.Second,it appears It is also noteworthy that no gender differences that the sexual activity typically involve heavy nongeni- occurred in the frequency of sexual behavior for those tal or genital behavior and not just light nongenital who had a particular relationship.In other words, behavior.The proportion of young adults who had women who had a friend with benefits engaged in as engaged in light nongenital behavior and those who much sexual behavior with their partner as men did. had engaged in heavy nongenital behavior with friends This finding is consistent with other work showing no with benefits were very similar,suggesting both light gender differences in frequencies of sexual behaviors in and heavy nongenital behavior had occurred in almost close other-sex friendships (Shaffer Furman,2010). all cases. In effect,these findings suggest that the commonly Third,most participants thought friends with benefits reported gender differences in sexual behavior may were no different from other friends except for the sex- primarily stem from the kinds of sexual relationships ual activity;in fact,most thought that it was necessary men and women establish and not in what occurs in to be a friend to be a friend with benefits.These opi- these relationships once established.Of course,the nions,however,were only held by approximately 70% absence of significant differences must always be cau- of the participants;moreover,about one half thought tiously interpreted,but it makes logical sense that the a friend with benefits could be someone whom they did frequencies of the sexual behaviors we examined would not know well.Similarly,a significant minority reported not differ by gender because the vast majority of the that some or all of their friends with benefits were casual participants were describing heterosexual encounters. acquaintances.The examination of the different config- In fact,the absence of differences in the frequencies urations also suggests that it is not necessary for a friend provides some evidence that the gender differences that with benefits to be a friend,but significant sexual are observed in this study are meaningful and do not activity with a friend seems more likely to be associated simply stem from a tendency of one gender to overesti- with being considered a friend with benefits than similar mate or underestimate their sexual activity.If one activity with a casual acquaintance.At the same time, gender overestimated or underestimated their sexual the typical friend with benefits may not be as close of behavior,one would have expected gender differences a friend as other friends.Young adults reported engag- in their estimates of the frequency of sexual behavior ing in fewer activities with friends with benefits than within a relationship. they did with friends.Interactions with friends with The proportions of men and women reporting differ- benefits may focus around sexual activity and may not ent kinds of relationships do differ.Men or women may be as extensive as that with other friends. be inaccurate in reporting whether they have had a particular kind of relationship or they may define the Limitations and Future Directions nature of the relationship differently (e.g.,whether it was a friend or romantic partner).Finally,the females' In this study,we initially informed the participants partners are not necessarily selected from the subpopu- that we were going to ask about sexual behavior with lations that the males in the study are part of;similarly, romantic partners,friends,and casual acquaintances. the males'partners may not necessarily be selected from For reasons previously described,we did not introduce the subpopulations that the females in the study are part the category of friends with benefits until the other of.For example,adolescent females'romantic partners questions had been administered on the computer. 562
behavior with a romantic partner in the last year than men were. This study extends this work by showing similar gender differences in light nongenital sexual behavior with a romantic partner. Prior work has found that men are more likely to engage in sexual behavior with a nonromantic partner (see Okami & Shackelford, 2001). These findings, however, provide a more nuanced picture of gender differences in sexual activity with nonromantic partners. Men were more likely to engage in light nongenital sexual activity with a casual acquaintance, but they were not more likely to engage in sexual behaviors with either friends or friends with benefits, where the level of intimacy is greater. In fact, the proportions of women engaging in the various sexual behaviors with these partners were at least as high as those of men. These findings suggest that the commonly observed gender differences in nonromantic sexual behavior may principally reflect sexual experiences with casual acquaintances or people whom they just met. It is also noteworthy that no gender differences occurred in the frequency of sexual behavior for those who had a particular relationship. In other words, women who had a friend with benefits engaged in as much sexual behavior with their partner as men did. This finding is consistent with other work showing no gender differences in frequencies of sexual behaviors in close other-sex friendships (Shaffer & Furman, 2010). In effect, these findings suggest that the commonly reported gender differences in sexual behavior may primarily stem from the kinds of sexual relationships men and women establish and not in what occurs in these relationships once established. Of course, the absence of significant differences must always be cautiously interpreted, but it makes logical sense that the frequencies of the sexual behaviors we examined would not differ by gender because the vast majority of the participants were describing heterosexual encounters. In fact, the absence of differences in the frequencies provides some evidence that the gender differences that are observed in this study are meaningful and do not simply stem from a tendency of one gender to overestimate or underestimate their sexual activity. If one gender overestimated or underestimated their sexual behavior, one would have expected gender differences in their estimates of the frequency of sexual behavior within a relationship. The proportions of men and women reporting different kinds of relationships do differ. Men or women may be inaccurate in reporting whether they have had a particular kind of relationship or they may define the nature of the relationship differently (e.g., whether it was a friend or romantic partner). Finally, the females’ partners are not necessarily selected from the subpopulations that the males in the study are part of; similarly, the males’ partners may not necessarily be selected from the subpopulations that the females in the study are part of. For example, adolescent females’ romantic partners are, on average, older than adolescent males’ partners, which might account for why a higher percentage of adolescent females have engaged in intercourse in romantic relationships than males have (Carver et al., 2003). Friends with Benefits This study provides some insight into the nature of friends with benefits. Like many vernacular categories, full agreement did not exist about the defining characteristics, but there was a reasonable level of consensus regarding several features. First, consistent with prior research (Bisson & Levine, 2009), most participants thought that one would not be a friend with benefits unless sexual behavior had occurred on more than one occasion. Consistent with this idea, frequencies of sexual behavior with friends with benefits were greater than with friends or casual acquaintances. Second, it appears that the sexual activity typically involve heavy nongenital or genital behavior and not just light nongenital behavior. The proportion of young adults who had engaged in light nongenital behavior and those who had engaged in heavy nongenital behavior with friends with benefits were very similar, suggesting both light and heavy nongenital behavior had occurred in almost all cases. Third, most participants thought friends with benefits were no different from other friends except for the sexual activity; in fact, most thought that it was necessary to be a friend to be a friend with benefits. These opinions, however, were only held by approximately 70% of the participants; moreover, about one half thought a friend with benefits could be someone whom they did not know well. Similarly, a significant minority reported that some or all of their friends with benefits were casual acquaintances. The examination of the different configurations also suggests that it is not necessary for a friend with benefits to be a friend, but significant sexual activity with a friend seems more likely to be associated with being considered a friend with benefits than similar activity with a casual acquaintance. At the same time, the typical friend with benefits may not be as close of a friend as other friends. Young adults reported engaging in fewer activities with friends with benefits than they did with friends. Interactions with friends with benefits may focus around sexual activity and may not be as extensive as that with other friends. Limitations and Future Directions In this study, we initially informed the participants that we were going to ask about sexual behavior with romantic partners, friends, and casual acquaintances. For reasons previously described, we did not introduce the category of friends with benefits until the other questions had been administered on the computer. FURMAN AND SHAFFER 562
SEXUAL PARTNERS Accordingly,some participants were likely to have friendships,but involve some validating,pleasurable described their sexual behavior with a friend with bene- sexual element,or "spark of sexuality"(Camerer, fits as both sexual behavior with a friend and as sexual 1994;Shaffer Furman,2010). behavior with a friend with benefits.In many respects, As previously noted,the numbers in this study refer reporting it as both is appropriate,as this study revealed to sexual activity during the last year.Thus.these figures that most young adults consider friends with benefits to underestimate the lifetime proportions of sexual activity be friends.Thus,the descriptive information about the with a nonromantic partner and overestimate the pro- different types of nonromantic partners provides portions at any specific time.An important direction accurate estimates of the prevalence and frequency of for future research would be to conduct a longitudinal the sexual activities of these categories in this sample. study of the sexual activity in each relationship or sexual At the same time,it would be inaccurate to examine encounter a person has. the configurations of nonromantic partners (see This study also focused on the occurrence and fre- Table 5)and assume that some individuals had multiple quency of sexual activity with different partners.Future kinds of nonromantic partners because they reported work could examine whether the meaning of different acts sexual behavior with both a friend and a friend with of sexual behavior or the motives for sexual behavior dif- benefits.Many are likely to be the same person. fer as a function of the relational context.For example, Our analyses compared the category of friends with participants may primarily be interested in pleasure in benefits with the broader category of friends with whom some contexts,such as with casual acquaintances,but one had engaged in some sexual behavior.Individuals they may also be seeking intimacy with romantic partners. who were considered both friends and friends with ben- Although relatively representative numbers of differ- efits would have been classified into both categories. ent ethnic groups and individuals with different sexual Thus,any differences we found between friends with orientations were included,the sample primarily con- benefits and friends had to reflect differences between sisted of White heterosexual young adults.Studies of friends with benefits and other friends with whom one specific ethnic groups and sexual orientations are needed had engaged in sexual behavior,but who were not con- to determine if the overall patterns reported here are sidered friends with benefits.Although the differences characteristic of particular subgroups. we observed are meaningful,our approach might have In summary,this is one of the first studies to examine masked or underestimated these differences between sexual activity with different types of nonromantic part- friends with benefits and other friends with whom one ners.Moreover,it is one of the first to examine different had engaged in sexual behavior because of the inclusion levels of sexual activity with nonromantic partners.The of those who were friends and friends with benefits in results underscore the importance of these distinctions these comparisons. and point out several directions for subsequent work. This study also provides some information about how one could define friends with benefits in terms of References the nature and frequency of sexual activity.By putting together the results of this research and popular descrip- Afifi,W.A.,Faulkner,S.L.(2000).On being"just friends":The fre- tions,future investigators could develop a useful defi- quency and impact of sexual activity in cross-sex friendships. nition of a distinct category of friends with benefits. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.17.205-222. At the same time,it is important to recognize that com- Behrens.J.T.(1997).Principles and procedures of exploratory data plete consensus does not exist among young adults analysis.Psychological Methods,2.131-160. Bisson,M.A.,Levine,T.R.(2009).Negotiating a friends with regarding the definition of this category;thus,any benefits relationship.Archives of Sexual Behavior,38,66-73. definition by an investigator would not fully corre- Camerer,M.C.G.(1994).A parent's guide to coping with adolescent spond to the participants'natural categories and may friendships:The three musketeer phenomenon.Springfield,IL: alter results.In effect,participant-defined,as well as Thomas. investigator-defined,categories have their merits. Carver,K.,Joyner,K.,&Udry,J.R.(2003).National estimates of adolescent romantic relationships during adolescence.In In a related vein,the findings clearly indicate the P.Florsheim (Ed.),Adolescent romantic relations and sexual beha- importance of differentiating among these types of part- vior:Theory,research,and practical implications (pp.23-56). ners,but further differentiations may also prove fruitful. Mahwah,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Inc. In particular,it would be useful to specifically examine Denizet-Lewis,B.(2004,May 30).Friends,friends with benefits and other types of friends with whom one has engaged in the benefits of the local mall.The New York Times Magazine Retrieved from http://nytimes.com/2004/05/30/magazine/friends- sexual behavior.One such group of friends would friends-with-benefits-and-the-benefits-of-the-local-mall.html be past romantic partners,who have some sexual Elo,I.T..King.R.B.,Furstenberg.F.F.,Jr.(1999).Adolescent encounters after the romantic relationship has dissolved females:Their sexual partners and the fathers of their children (Manning et al.,2005).Another category would be Journal of Marriage and the Family,61,64-74. friends who are considering a romantic relationship England,P.,Shafer,E.F.,Fogarty,A.C.K.(2008).Hooking up and forming romantic relationships on today's college campuses (Shaffer Furman,2010).Another group may be more In M.S.Kimmel A.Aronson (Eds.),The gendered society in keeping with a conventional conceptualization of reader (3rd ed.,pp.531-548).New York:Oxford University. 563
Accordingly, some participants were likely to have described their sexual behavior with a friend with bene- fits as both sexual behavior with a friend and as sexual behavior with a friend with benefits. In many respects, reporting it as both is appropriate, as this study revealed that most young adults consider friends with benefits to be friends. Thus, the descriptive information about the different types of nonromantic partners provides accurate estimates of the prevalence and frequency of the sexual activities of these categories in this sample. At the same time, it would be inaccurate to examine the configurations of nonromantic partners (see Table 5) and assume that some individuals had multiple kinds of nonromantic partners because they reported sexual behavior with both a friend and a friend with benefits. Many are likely to be the same person. Our analyses compared the category of friends with benefits with the broader category of friends with whom one had engaged in some sexual behavior. Individuals who were considered both friends and friends with benefits would have been classified into both categories. Thus, any differences we found between friends with benefits and friends had to reflect differences between friends with benefits and other friends with whom one had engaged in sexual behavior, but who were not considered friends with benefits. Although the differences we observed are meaningful, our approach might have masked or underestimated these differences between friends with benefits and other friends with whom one had engaged in sexual behavior because of the inclusion of those who were friends and friends with benefits in these comparisons. This study also provides some information about how one could define friends with benefits in terms of the nature and frequency of sexual activity. By putting together the results of this research and popular descriptions, future investigators could develop a useful defi- nition of a distinct category of friends with benefits. At the same time, it is important to recognize that complete consensus does not exist among young adults regarding the definition of this category; thus, any definition by an investigator would not fully correspond to the participants’ natural categories and may alter results. In effect, participant-defined, as well as investigator-defined, categories have their merits. In a related vein, the findings clearly indicate the importance of differentiating among these types of partners, but further differentiations may also prove fruitful. In particular, it would be useful to specifically examine other types of friends with whom one has engaged in sexual behavior. One such group of friends would be past romantic partners, who have some sexual encounters after the romantic relationship has dissolved (Manning et al., 2005). Another category would be friends who are considering a romantic relationship (Shaffer & Furman, 2010). Another group may be more in keeping with a conventional conceptualization of friendships, but involve some validating, pleasurable sexual element, or ‘‘spark of sexuality’’ (Camerer, 1994; Shaffer & Furman, 2010). As previously noted, the numbers in this study refer to sexual activity during the last year. Thus, these figures underestimate the lifetime proportions of sexual activity with a nonromantic partner and overestimate the proportions at any specific time. An important direction for future research would be to conduct a longitudinal study of the sexual activity in each relationship or sexual encounter a person has. This study also focused on the occurrence and frequency of sexual activity with different partners. Future work could examine whether the meaning of different acts of sexual behavior or the motives for sexual behavior differ as a function of the relational context. For example, participants may primarily be interested in pleasure in some contexts, such as with casual acquaintances, but they may also be seeking intimacy with romantic partners. Although relatively representative numbers of different ethnic groups and individuals with different sexual orientations were included, the sample primarily consisted of White heterosexual young adults. Studies of specific ethnic groups and sexual orientations are needed to determine if the overall patterns reported here are characteristic of particular subgroups. In summary, this is one of the first studies to examine sexual activity with different types of nonromantic partners. Moreover, it is one of the first to examine different levels of sexual activity with nonromantic partners. The results underscore the importance of these distinctions and point out several directions for subsequent work. References Afifi, W. A., & Faulkner, S. L. (2000). On being ‘‘just friends’’: The frequency and impact of sexual activity in cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 205–222. Behrens, J. T. (1997). Principles and procedures of exploratory data analysis. Psychological Methods, 2, 131–160. Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 66–73. Camerer, M. C. G. (1994). A parent’s guide to coping with adolescent friendships: The three musketeer phenomenon. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Carver, K., Joyner, K., & Udry, J. R. (2003). National estimates of adolescent romantic relationships during adolescence. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 23–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Denizet-Lewis, B. (2004, May 30). Friends, friends with benefits and the benefits of the local mall. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from http://nytimes.com/2004/05/30/magazine/friendsfriends-with-benefits-and-the-benefits-of-the-local-mall.html Elo, I. T., King, R. B., & Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (1999). Adolescent females: Their sexual partners and the fathers of their children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 64–74. England, P., Shafer, E. F., & Fogarty, A. C. K. (2008). Hooking up and forming romantic relationships on today’s college campuses. In M. S. Kimmel & A. Aronson (Eds.), The gendered society reader (3rd ed., pp. 531–548). New York: Oxford University. SEXUAL PARTNERS 563
