Abstract
Cybersex refers to a subgroup of interactive, interpersonal online sexual activities. People can engage in cybersex with three types of partners: (a) a primary committed partner, (b) a known non-partner, and, (c) a stranger. These partner types differ in degree of anonymity—one of five characteristics that make the internet appealing for sexual activity according to the Quin-A Engine. Previously, researchers have found that the partner context of heterosexual people’s cybersex experiences largely conform to the traditional sexual script (TSS; a cultural set of norms that incorporates traditional gender roles). However, researchers have not examined whether the TSS is apparent in sexual minority people’s cybersex experiences. The goal of the present study was to examine the role of anonymity and sexual scripts in sexual minority women’s and men’s cybersex experiences. Sexual minority women (n = 143) and men (n = 103) completed an online survey that included questions about lifetime prevalence and frequency of cybersex within each partner context. Findings demonstrated that more women engaged in cybersex with a primary partner compared to men, and that more men than women reported cybersex outside a committed-partner context and engaged in it more frequently. Implications for sexual education, clinical practice, and personal safety navigation for sexual minority people are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist, 36(7), 715–729. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.36.7.715.
Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 27–35. doi:10.1080/00224490309552164.
Allison, R., & Risman, B. J. (2013). A double standard for “hooking up”: How far have we come toward gender equality? Social Science Research, 42(5), 1191–1206. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.04.006.
Bartoli, A., & Clark, M. (2006). The dating game: Similarities and differences in dating scripts among college students. Sexuality and Culture, 10(4), 54–80. doi:10.1007/s12119-006-1026-0.
Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 242–273. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_5.
Bell, A. P., & Weinberg, M. S. (1978). Homosexualities: A study of diversity among men and women. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Blair, K. L., & Pukall, C. F. (2014). Can less be more? Comparing duration vs. frequency of sexual encounters in same-sex and mixed-sex relationships. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 23(2), 123–136. doi:10.3138/cjhs.2393.
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples: Money, work, sex. New York: William Morrow and Co..
Brown, G., Maycock, B., & Burns, S. (2005). Your picture is your bait: Use and meaning of cyberspace among gay men. Journal of Sex Research, 42(1), 63–73. doi:10.1080/00224490509552258.
Byers, E. S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8(1–2), 7–25. doi:10.1300/J056v08n01_02.
Byers, E. S., & Shaughnessy, K. (2014). Attitudes toward online sexual activities. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 8(1), article 10. doi:10.5817/CP2014-1-10.
Cáceres, C. (2005). Assessing young people’s non-consensual sexual experiences: Lessons from Peru. In S. J. Jejeebhoy, I. H. Shah, & S. Thapa (Eds.), Sex without consent: Young people in developing countries (pp. 127–138). New York: Zed Books.
Claxton, S. E., & van Dulmen, M. H. M. (2013). Casual sexual relationships and experiences in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1(2), 138–150. doi:10.1177/2167696813487181.
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The fewer the merrier?: Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 1–30. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01286.x.
Cooper, A. (1998). Sexuality and the internet: Surfing into the new millennium. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 1(2), 187–193. doi:10.1089/cpb.1998.1.187.
Cooper, A. (2002). Sex and the internet: A guidebook for clinicians. New York: Routledge.
Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 13–26. doi:10.1080/00224490309552163.
Daneback, K., Cooper, A., & Månsson, S.-A. (2005). An internet study of cybersex participants. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(3), 321–328. doi:10.1007/s10508-005-3120-z.
Daneback, K., Månsson, S.-A., & Ross, M. (2007). Using the internet to find offline sex partners. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(1), 100–107. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9986.
Daneback, K., Ross, M. W., & Månsson, S.-A. (2008). Bisexuality and sexually related activities on the internet. Journal of Bisexuality, 8(1–2), 115–129. doi:10.1080/15299710802142317.
Döring, N. M. (2009). The internet’s impact on sexuality: A critical review of 15 years of research. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1089–1101. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003.
Döring, N., Daneback, K., Shaughnessy, K., Grov, C., & Byers, E. S. (2015). Online sexual activity experiences among college students: A four-country comparison. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0656-4.
Drouin, M., Vogel, K. N., Surbey, A., & Stills, J. R. (2013). Let’s talk about sexting, baby: Computer-mediated sexual behaviors among young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A25–A30.
Eaton, A. A., & Rose, S. (2011). Has dating become more egalitarian? A 35 year review using sex roles. Sex Roles, 64(11–12), 843–862. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9957-9.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2014, December 8). Hate crime statistics, 2013. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2013.
Felmlee, D., Orzechowicz, D., & Fortes, C. (2010). Fairy tales: Attraction and stereotypes in same-gender relationships. Sex Roles, 62(3–4), 226–240. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9701-x.
Fiore, A. T., Taylor, L. S., Zhong, X., Mendelsohn, G. A., & Cheshire, C. (2010). Who’s right and who writes: People, profiles, contacts, and replies in online dating. Retrieved from http://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/hicss/2010/3869/00/index.html.
Fisher, T. D. (2013). Gender roles and pressure to be truthful: The bogus pipeline modifies gender differences in sexual but not non-sexual behavior. Sex Roles, 68(7–8), 401–414. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9957-9.
Gagnon, J. H. (1990). The explicit and implicit use of the scripting perspective in sex research. Annual Review of Sex Research, 1(1), 1–43. doi:10.1080/10532528.1990.10559854.
Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.
Garcia, J. R., Reiber, C., Massey, S. G., & Merriwether, A. M. (2012). Sexual hookup culture: A review. Review of General Psychology, 16(2), 161–176. doi:10.1037/a0027911.
Government of Canada, S. C. (2015a, April 28). Canadian Community Health Survey - Annual Component (CCHS). Retrieved from http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3226.
Government of Canada, S. C. (2015b, June 9). Police-reported hate crime in Canada, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14191-eng.htm#a20.
Grov, C., Breslow, A. S., Newcomb, M. E., Rosenberger, J. G., & Bauermeister, J. A. (2014). Gay and bisexual men’s use of the internet: Research from the 1990s through 2013. Journal of Sex Research, 51(4), 390–409. doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.871626.
Halberstam, J. (2003). What’s that smell? Queer temporalities and subculture lives. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 6(3), 313–333. doi:10.1177/13678779030063005.
Herek, G. (2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 1(2), 6–24. doi:10.1525/srsp.2004.1.2.6.
Hillier, L., Mitchell, K. J., & Ybarra, M. L. (2012). The internet as a safety net: Findings from a series of online focus groups with LGB and non-LGB young people in the United States. Journal of LGBT Youth, 9(3), 225–246. doi:10.1080/19361653.2012.684642.
Howell, J. L., Egan, P. M., Giuliano, T. A., & Ackley, B. D. (2011). The reverse double standard in perceptions of student-teacher sexual relationships: The role of gender, initiation, and power. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 180–200. doi:10.1080/00224540903510837.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Richardson, J. (2011). Positioning the booty-call relationship on the spectrum of relationships: Sexual but more emotional than one-night stands. Journal of Sex Research, 48(5), 486–495. doi:10.1080/00224499.2010.497984.
Karlsen, M., & Træen, B. (2013). Identifying ‘friends with benefits’ scripts among young adults in the Norwegian cultural context. Sexuality & Culture, 17(1), 83–99. doi:10.1007/s12119-012-9140-7.
King, S. A. (1999). Internet gambling and pornography: Illustrative examples of the psychological consequences of communication anarchy. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 2(3), 175–193. doi:10.1089/cpb.1999.2.175.
Kitzinger, C. (2005). Heteronormativity in action: Reproducing the heterosexual nuclear family in after-hours medical calls. Social Problems, 52(4), 477–498. doi:10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.477.
Klinkenberg, D., & Rose, S. (1994). Dating scripts of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 26(4), 23–35. doi:10.1300/J082v26n04_02.
Kvalem, I. L., & Træen, B. (2000). Self-efficacy, scripts of love and intention to use condoms among Norwegian adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(3), 337–353. doi:10.1016/0197-0070(91)90487-7.
Leigh, B. C. (1989). Reasons for having and avoiding sex: Gender, sexual orientation, and relationship to sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 26(2), 199–209. doi:10.1080/00224498909551506.
Lunney, G. H. (1970). Using analysis of variance with a dichotomous dependent variable: An empirical study. Journal of Educational Measurement, 7(4), 263–269. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1970.tb00727.x.
Masters, N. T., Casey, E., Wells, E. A., & Morrison, D. M. (2013). Sexual scripts among young heterosexually active men and women: Continuity and change. Journal of Sex Research, 50(5), 409–420. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.661102.
Matthews, A. K., Tartaro, J., & Hughes, T. L. (2002). A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual women in committed relationships. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7(1), 101–114. doi:10.1300/J155v07n01_07.
McCormick, N. B. (2010). Preface to sexual scripts: Social and therapeutic implications. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 25(1), 91–95. doi:10.1080/14681990903563707.
McHugh, M., Pearlson, B., & Poet, A. (2012). Who needs to understand hook up culture? Sex Roles, 67(5–6), 363–365. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0172-0.
Mutchler, M. G. (2000). Young gay men’s stories in the states: Scripts, sex, and safety in the time of AIDS. Sexualities, 3(1), 31–54. doi:10.1177/136346000003001002.
Myers, J. L., DiCecco, J. V., White, J. B., & Borden, V. M. (1982). Repeated measurements on dichotomous variables: Q and F tests. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 269–277. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.92.2.517.
Nielson, J. M., Walden, G., & Kunkel, C. A. (2000). Gendered heteronormativity: Empirical illustrations in everyday life. The Sociological Quarterly, 41(2), 283–296. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2000.tb00096.x.
O’Sullivan, L. F., Harrison, A., Morrell, R., Monroe-Wise, A., & Kubeka, M. (2006). Gender dynamics in the primary sexual relationships of young rural South African women and men. Culture, Health, & Sexuality, 8(2), 99–113. doi:10.1080/13691050600665048.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Review, 114(1), 29–51. doi:10.1037/10345-003.
Peplau, L. (2003). Human sexuality: How do men and women differ? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(2), 37–40. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01221.
Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 21–38. doi:10.1037/a0017504.
Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2011). Gender differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors: A review of meta-analytic results and large datasets. Journal of Sex Research, 48(2–3), 149–165. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.551851.
Rimington, D. D., & Gast, J. (2007). Cybersex use and abuse: Implications for health education. American Journal of Health Education, 38(1), 34–40. doi:10.1080/19325037.2007.10598940.
Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 523–547. doi:10.1177/0003122412448050.
Ross, M. W., & Kauth, M. R. (2002). Men who have sex with men, and the internet: Emerging clinical issues and their management. In A. Cooper (Ed.), Sex and the internet: A guidebook for clinicians (pp. 47–69). New York: Brunner-Routledge. doi:10.1080/09540120310001634047.
Saewyc, E. M., Skay, C. L., Pettingell, S. L., Reis, E. A., et al. (2006). Hazards of stigma: The sexual and physical abuse of gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents in the United States and Canada. Child Welfare, 85(2), 195–213. doi:10.1016/s1054-139x(03)00482-8.
Sakaluk, J. K., Todd, L. M., Milhausen, R., Lachowsky, N. J., & Undergraduate Research Group in Sexuality (URGiS). (2014). Dominant heterosexual sexual scripts in emerging adulthood: Conceptualization and measurement. The Journal of Sex Research, 51(5), 516–531. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.745473.
Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(2), 247–275. doi:10.1017/S0140525X05000051.
Shaughnessy, K., & Byers, E. S. (2013). Seeing the forest with the trees: Cybersex as a case study of single-item versus multi-item measures of sexual behaviour. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 45(3), 220–229. doi:10.1037/a0031331.
Shaughnessy, K., & Byers, E. S. (2014). Contextualizing cybersex experience: Heterosexually identified men and women’s desire for and experiences with cybersex with three types of partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 178–185. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.005.
Shaughnessy, K., Byers, E., & Walsh, L. (2011a). Online sexual activity experience of heterosexual students: Gender similarities and differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(2), 419–427. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9629-9.
Shaughnessy, K., Byers, S., & Thornton, S. J. (2011b). What is cybersex? Heterosexual students’ definitions. International Journal of Sexual Health, 23(2), 79–89. doi:10.1080/19317611.2010.546945.
Simon, W. (1996). Postmodern sexualities. London: Routledge.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1984). Sexual scripts. Society, 22(01), 53–60. doi:10.4324/9780203205815.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15(2), 97–120. doi:10.1007/BF01542219.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1987). A sexual scripts approach. In J. H. Geer & W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), Theories of human sexuality (pp. 363–383). New York: Plenum. doi:10.1007/BF01542219.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (2003). Sexual scripts: Origins, influences and changes. Qualitative Sociology, 26(4), 491–497. doi:10.1023/B:QUAS.0000005053.99846.e5.
Sprecher, S., Treger, S., & Sakaluk, J. (2013). Premarital sexual standards and sociosexuality: Gender, ethnicity, and cohort differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(8), 1395–1405. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0145-6.
Tikkanen, R., & Ross, M. W. (2003). Technological tearoom trade: Characteristics of Swedish men visiting gay internet chat rooms. AIDS Education & Prevention, 15(2), 122–132. doi:10.1521/aeap.15.3.122.23833.
Træen, B., & Gravningen, K. (2011). The use of protection for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and unwanted pregnancy among Norwegian heterosexual young adults 2009. Sexuality & Culture, 15(2), 195–212. doi:10.1007/s12119-011-9090-5.
Twenge, J., Sherman, R., & Wells, B. (2015). Changes in American adults’ sexual behavior and attitudes, 1972–2012. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(8), 2273–2285. doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0540-2.
Ward, B. W., Dahlhamer, J. M., Galinsky, A. M., & Joestl, S. S. (2014). Sexual orientation and health among U.S. adults: National health interview survey, 2013. National Health Statistics Reports, 77, 1–10. Retrieved from http://historeo.com/Resources/NCHS%20Report%2077%2020140715%20Survey%20on%20Sexual%20Orientation%20and%20Health.pdf.
Wentland, J. J., & Reissing, E. D. (2011). Taking casual sex not too casually: Exploring definitions of casual sexual relationships. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20(3), 75–91.
Wiederman, M. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal, 13(4), 496–502. doi:10.1177/1066480705278729.
Willetts, M. C., Sprecher, S., & Beck, F. D. (2004). Overview of sexual practices and attitudes within relational contexts. In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 57–85). London, UK: Erlbaum Associates. doi:10.4324/9781410610249.
Young, R. M., & Meyer, I. H. (2005). The trouble with “MSM” and “WSW”: Erasure of the sexual-minority person in public health discourse. American Journal of Public Health, 95(7), 1144–1149. doi:10.2105/ajph.2004.046714.
Zaikman, Y., & Marks, M. J. (2014). Ambivalent sexism and the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 71, 333–344. doi:10.1007/s11199-014- 0417-1.
Acknowledgments
The present research was supported in part by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We would also like to thank Dr. E. Sandra Byers for her support during study design and data collection.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 18 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Courtice, E.L., Shaughnessy, K. The Partner Context of Sexual Minority Women’s and Men’s Cybersex Experiences: Implications for the Traditional Sexual Script. Sex Roles 78, 272–285 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0792-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0792-5