Relationships in which a woman is significantly older than her male partner have always attracted a lot of attention and scrutiny. Case in point: remember what big news it was when Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher were together? Or the international media obsession that followed French president Emmanuel Macron and his spouse, Brigitte, who happens to be 24 years his senior?

This same scrutiny isn’t usually applied to relationships in which men are significantly older than their female partners. For example, U.S. President Donald Trump happens to be 24 years older than Melania. Certainly, the Trumps have attracted a lot of media attention—it just hasn’t been for their age difference! Research on age-gap relationships bears out this double standard.

Specifically, people are more disapproving of male-female age-gap couples when the older partner is a women than they are when the older partner is a man [1]. In these woman-older relationships, the disapproval seems to be reserved primarily for the female partner. Indeed, while older women are commonly referred to as “cougars”—a term that implies a predatory nature—derogatory labels for the younger men who enter these relationships don’t really exist.

This strong bias against woman-older age-gap relationships probably helps to explain why they’re relatively rare. In fact, according to census data in the United States, just 1.3% of marriages featuring a man and a woman include a woman who is ten or more years older than her husband [2].

Given this double standard and social disapproval, can older women develop and maintain long-term, satisfying relationships with younger men? According to my own research on this topic, they most certainly can.

I surveyed approximately 200 heterosexual women in relationships, who happened to be about evenly divided between those who were significantly older than their male partners (22 years older on average), those who were significantly younger than their male partners (17 years younger on average), and those who were close in age to their partners (3 years different on average).

What I found was that women who were more than ten years older than their male partners were actually the most satisfied with and committed to their relationships compared to both women who were younger than their partners, as well as women whose partners were close in age [3].

Why were the older women happier with their relationships? I can’t say with certainty based on my data, but it may be because when the woman is older, it might shift the power dynamic toward greater equality. We know from a lot of research that greater equality in a relationship tends to make couples happier [4], so perhaps it’s the case that this arrangement is just more equitable.

Alternatively, maybe it’s not as much about equality as it is about putting women in a more dominant position. We know that a lot of men are into the idea of submitting to a dominant, powerful woman—and they tend to see older women as having those characteristics. After all, this is a big part of the reason why MILF-themed porn is so popular. So maybe it’s a feeling of empowerment that ultimately underlies older women’s greater feelings of satisfaction—and perhaps that empowerment allows women to get more of what they want, sexually and otherwise.

Although more research is needed, these results suggest that while age-gap couples featuring an older women and a younger man might face a lot of social resistance, this does not necessarily prevent them from developing strong, highly satisfying relationships.

Want to learn more about Sex and Psychology ? Click here for previous articles or follow the blog on Facebook (facebook.com/psychologyofsex), Twitter (@JustinLehmiller), or Reddit (reddit.com/r/psychologyofsex) to receive updates. You can also follow Dr. Lehmiller on YouTube and Instagram.

[1] Banks, C. A., & Arnold, P. (2001). Opinions towards sexual partners with a large age difference. Marriage & Family Review, 33, 5–18.

[2] U.S. Census Bureau. (1999). America’s families and living arrangements. Retrieved April 8, 2009 from: http://www.census.gov/population/www/ socdemo/hh-fam/p20-537_99.html

[3] Lehmiller, J. J., & Agnew, C. R. (2008). Commitment in age-gap heterosexual romantic relationships: A test of evolutionary and socio-cultural predictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 74-82.

[4] Winn, K. I., Crawford, D. W., & Fischer, J. L. (1991). Equity and commitment in romance versus friendship. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 301–314.

Image Credit: 123RF/Dmytro Zinkevych

You Might Also Like:

• Should You Ever Keep a Relationship Secret?

• Is There A Romeo & Juliet Effect? The Link Between Parental Interference And Relationship Quality

• What A Decade Of Data From Pornhub Reveals About Our Sexual Interests

“By focusing on the potential harms of pornography alone, we may be distracting ourselves from bigger issues or missing root causes of dating and sexual violence, which are the true public health crises.” - Dr. Emily Rothman.

How does pornography affect the way that teens think about and approach sex? Is there a link between pornography and sexual violence, as many in the media have claimed? Also what’s the most effective way to talk to teens about sex and pornography in the first place? Dr. Emily Rothman thoughtfully addresses these questions and more in the TEDMed video below.

Rothman’s talk is one of the best porn talks I’ve seen because it presents a balanced take on the issue. It’s not an ideologically driven pro-porn or anti-porn take; rather, it’s an attempt to start a nuanced conversation about what we do and don’t know concerning the effects of porn and how we can use that knowledge to inform sex education efforts.

Rothman and I (and most other sex educators and researchers I know) share the belief that porn alone is a pretty bad form of sex education; however, that doesn’t mean that porn itself is inherently bad or that it should be banned. Rather, adolescents need context for understanding porn. And that’s why Rothman has helped to create a pornography literacy curriculum for high school students. The goal of this program is to teach adolescents how to become critical thinkers if and when they do see pornography in order to ensure that they don’t walk away with wrong ideas.

Check out the full video to learn more.

Watch more videos on the science of sex here.

Want to learn more about Sex and Psychology ? Click here for previous articles or follow the blog on Facebook (facebook.com/psychologyofsex), Twitter (@JustinLehmiller), or Reddit (reddit.com/r/psychologyofsex) to receive updates. You can also follow Dr. Lehmiller on YouTube and Instagram.

Image Source: 123RF/Stas Vulkanov

You Might Also Like:

• What Counts as “Pornography?” It Depends Who You Ask

• What Kinds of Porn Do Men and Women Watch Most Often?

• Why Is Porn Inspired By Video Games So Popular?

A few weeks ago, I posted an article about the beautiful—but sexually deceitful—orchid. Some orchids have evolved to mimic the appearance and scent of female bees in order to lure male bees, which then attempt to have sex with the flowers. This is in the orchid’s interest, of course, because the bees’ actions actually help the orchid to reproduce through pollination. However, it’s not necessarily in the interest of the male bees. 

This kind of sexual deception is hardly unique to orchids—in fact, you can find evidence of it throughout nature. For example, researchers have observed that, in certain types of spiders, males will trick females into mating by presenting them with a “worthless gift” [1]. Male spiders usually offer food (i.e., insects) wrapped in silk, which females will eat while they’re mating (how’s that for multitasking?). However, when food isn’t available, males sometimes engage in trickery by wrapping up seeds or other inedible objects to present.  

Sexual deception also happens under the sea. For example, small male cuttlefish have evolved the ability to switch their physical appearance from male to female [2]. This gives them the opportunity to bypass the mate-guarding efforts of larger male cuttlefish. Specifically, changing their appearance allows them to sneak past rival males in order to mate with protected females.

These are just a few of the many examples we see in the animal kingdom. However, we know that sexual deception happens in humans, too. For example, in one study of online daters, more than 80% of participants were found to have lied about something on their profile, such as their height (especially men), weight (especially women), or age. Of course, people lie about a wide range of things—not just their appearance—in order to get dates and sex. For example, people might also lie about their wealth, career, social status, sexual history, and/or relationship status. 

So why is sexual deception everywhere we look? It likely has to do with the fact that all living things—plants, animals, and humans alike—are programmed to reproduce to ensure the survival of their species. Deception is just one of many strategies for overcoming reproductive challenges—and because deception can facilitate reproduction, traits that promote deceptive practices are actually more likely to get passed on.

What this tells us is that evolution isn’t selecting for moral or socially desirable behaviors—rather, evolution is selecting for behaviors that facilitate reproduction. And this can potentially help to explain why various behaviors that a given society or culture deems undesirable tend to persist (and perhaps even increase) in the population over time. 

As further support for this idea, some research suggests that having psychopathic traits may offer a reproductive advantage. How so? Because people with antisocial personalities tend to reproduce earlier and more often than the rest of us (read my summary of this research here) [3].   

In short, all of this sexual deception we’re seeing is there for a reason: it appears to be adaptive in an evolutionary sense. That said, let me reiterate that just because something evolved doesn’t make it right, nor does it justify anything. It just helps to explain why sexual deception is everywhere we look, and why it isn’t likely to go away.  

Want to learn more about Sex and Psychology ? Click here for previous articles or follow the blog on Facebook (facebook.com/psychologyofsex), Twitter (@JustinLehmiller), or Reddit (reddit.com/r/psychologyofsex) to receive updates. You can also follow Dr. Lehmiller on YouTube and Instagram.

[1] Albo, M. J., Winther, G., Tuni, C., Toft, S., & Bilde, T. (2011). Worthless donations: male deception and female counter play in a nuptial gift-giving spider. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 11(1), 329.

[2] Norman, M. D., Finn, J., & Tregenza, T. (1999). Female impersonation as an alternative reproductive strategy in giant cuttlefish. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 266(1426), 1347-1349.

[3] Tielbeek, J. J., Barnes, J. C., Popma, A., Polderman, T. J., Lee, J. J., Perry, J. R., … & Boutwell, B. B. (2018). Exploring the genetic correlations of antisocial behaviour and life history traits. BJPsych Open, 4(6), 467-470.

Image Source: 123RF/elvan74

You Might Also Like:

• Video: The Kinky Sex Lives of Insects

• The Incredible Science Behind Animal Sex (Video)

• Sex Question Friday: Do Animals Have Orgasms?

In Jack Morin’s classic book The Erotic Mind, he describes the “erotic equation” as follows:  

Attraction + Obstacles = Excitement

What this equation means is basically that if we’re attracted to something and we’re told we can’t have it, this makes us come to want it even more. It’s kind of like the phenomenon of reverse psychology, and it seems to be a basic part of human nature. Indeed, there’s a lot of evidence that this is true when it comes to both our sexual turn-ons and the romantic partners we’re drawn to. 

For example, in the survey of sexual fantasies I conducted for my book Tell Me What You Want, I found that people who identified as Republican and/or were more religious tended to fantasize more about sexual activities they aren’t “supposed” to want, such as infidelity, orgies, and swinging. To be sure, these are common fantasy themes across the board—but it’s notable that the people who fantasized about them the most often were the ones who had the most obstacles in their way of participating in those activities (read more about what your political beliefs say about your sexual fantasies here).

Likewise, consider a study in which attractive targets were described as having either low, intermediate, or high availability [1]. When asked who they would most like to date and what kind of restaurant they’d take that person to, participants tended to choose the low availability target and, further, they opted to splurge and take them to the fanciest restaurant (read more about this study here).

In another study, participants were told that an attractive person liked them a lot, liked them an average amount, or liked them at a level that was unknown [2]. Participants then rated how attracted they were to the target. Not surprisingly, people were drawn to the target who liked them a lot over the target who liked them an average amount. However, they were actually most attracted to the target who liked them an unknown amount! 

Uncertainty probably works on a few levels here. On the one hand, being uncertain about a stranger’s feelings can be seen as an obstacle to pursuing something with them. However, uncertainty could also create a sense of mystery that draws you in, further increasing excitement. 

What all of this tells us is that there seems to be a lot of truth to the erotic equation. For sexual activities we desire and persons we’re attracted to, obstacles do seem to increase excitement. 

However, this isn’t to say that playing hard to get always works—in fact, it could potentially backfire in some cases. For instance, if you’re just looking for casual sex (and not a romantic relationship), playing hard to get can actually make you less desirable. Likewise, if you keep your feelings about another person secret for too long, they may eventually lose interest because they come to think you’re just playing games with them.

In short, while playing hard to get does seem to work—it only works up until a certain point. 

Want to learn more about Sex and Psychology ? Click here for previous articles or follow the blog on Facebook (facebook.com/psychologyofsex), Twitter (@JustinLehmiller), or Reddit (reddit.com/r/psychologyofsex) to receive updates. You can also follow Dr. Lehmiller on YouTube and Instagram.

[1] Jonason, P. K., & Li, N. P. (2013). Playing hard‐to‐get: Manipulating one’s perceived availability as a mate. European Journal of Personality.

[2] Whitchurch, E. R., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2011). “He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not…” Uncertainty Can Increase Romantic Attraction. Psychological Science.

Image Source: 123RF/iuphotos

You Might Also Like:

• Do People Get Better Looking When The Bar Is About To Close?

• 10 Mesmerizing Facts About Sexual Attraction

• The Science Of Attraction (VIDEO)

Adolescents today have greater access to a wider range of pornography than any previous generation. So how is it affecting them?  

This question is the crux of a new episode of Lisa Ling’s CNN series This is Lifetitled “Porn Ed,” which premieres September 29. Ling wanted to better understand how accessibility to porn is changing the way adolescents and young adults think about sex and approach relationships.  

I had a chance to preview the episode and sit down with Ling to discuss it. While there’s much that we agree on, including the idea that porn is not an effective substitute for sex education, there are some aspects of the episode that I worry could potentially leave viewers with the wrong impression of how porn impacts people, especially the idea that it is “addictive.” The show focuses on people’s personal opinions about and experiences with porn and doesn’t explore the science—in fact, no researchers or doctors are interviewed on screen during the episode. So while it’s certainly a thought-provoking show, there were some missed opportunities for a data-driven discussion. 

Below is a lightly edited transcript of my conversation with Ling that focuses on the areas where we agree, but also the areas where science and medicine diverge from some of the things claimed by those who were interviewed in the episode. 

Justin Lehmiller: In this episode, you interview people who see porn as a source of danger and problems, but you also talk to people like Cindy Gallop who see potential value in adult videos that are capturing real-life sex. When you put those different conversations together, what’s your take on whether porn itself is inherently good or bad, or is it neutral? 

Lisa Ling: Our episode really isn’t a condemnation of porn. I do think that for some people, there may be value to porn. And I would never begrudge sex workers because I actually think that there are sex workers out there who are performing a real service. My big concern is just the abundance of material that’s out there—some of which is really extreme—and how easy kids can access it. You know, when you talk about what Cindy’s trying to do with her website, Make Love Not Porn, they are defiant about the fact that they are not porn. They are providing people with an experience of what real sex should look like. It’s not always clean and it’s sometimes messy. It’s sometimes funny. It sometimes doesn’t really work very well. And I do think that there is value in that. I do think that we should be exposed to how beautiful and meaningful sex can be. It’s part of who we are, right? 

But at the same time, I do think that it’s incumbent on parents to start having those conversations with kids sooner. I think that kids need to understand that sex is part of who we are, that it can be just a pleasurable experience, that communication is really essential, and that what they are accessing is not reality. It’s entertainment for adults. There’s a lot that goes on behind the scenes that kids are never aware of. 

That’s one of the reasons why we feature Tasha Reign, the adult film star, because she is on a mission to communicate to people that, before cameras even roll, they have a negotiation about consent and about what the men and women are willing to do. I think if we had a better sense of the fact that this is all artificial in many ways—it’s entertainment—kids may not think that’s reality.

Justin Lehmiller: You and I are on the same page that porn should not be used to replace sex education. And you’ve already talked a bit about the different ways that parents need to start approaching sex education with their kids. But I’m curious as to the role of schools in all of this. What do you think schools need to be doing differently when it comes to sex ed, specifically as it relates to porn?

Lisa Ling: I think it’s ultimately a parent’s responsibility, but we have to recognize that there are some parents who aren’t able to have those kinds of conversations, don’t want to have those conversations, may not have time to have those kinds of conversations…so we need to start having those conversations in schools. In California, for example, where I’m from, there is a very comprehensive sexual education curriculum. When I sat through one of the classes, I was even uneasy because I wasn’t used to having those kinds of conversations. But for the kids, it was just sort of like they didn’t even blink. They’re learning that this is a natural part of who we are and that there shouldn’t be any shame or humor around it—that it’s meant to be enjoyed and pleasurable, but we have to make sure that we are safe at the same time.

Justin Lehmiller: I think you’re absolutely right that kids do want to have these discussions, but it’s usually the parents who don’t feel comfortable initiating them. So where are they going to get that information? I think schools provide one potential avenue for that through, say, porn literacy programs. 

Lisa Ling: I thought it was pretty impressive that in Boston public schools they have this sex ed curriculum that includes porn literacy. You know, some parents might go, “Why are my kids learning about porn in school?” Well, because your kids are probably watching porn in their bedrooms with the phone that you gave them. The moment your kid gets a phone or gets a mobile device, you got to start thinking about how to broach the subject with them because they’ve probably already seen things that they don’t understand that they think depict real sex.

Justin Lehmiller: Something I noticed in watching your episode is that you interviewed a lot of people, but you didn’t have any scientific or medical experts in the area of porn. I’m just curious—was there a reason or rationale behind not having one of them on to discuss it?

Lisa Ling:  Our show is very much an experiential one and we have found that by immersing ourselves amongst people who are going through these things, I think we get a better sense of and we’re more relatable to viewers who may be experiencing similar things. And if they do feel somehow like they connect with the information that we’re giving them or the people that we’re profiling, then they can seek out that more professional or clinical information.  

Like Alex Rhodes who started the NoFap website. He’s not a clinician or a therapist but he has half a million people on his website who say that they are suffering from pornography addiction. And pornography addiction hasn’t even been classified as an addiction. But because he’s experienced, he knows what has worked for him and what hasn’t and it’s become this forum for people to share exactly those things.

Justin Lehmiller: I’m glad that you brought up those points—that porn “addiction” is not a recognized medical or psychological diagnosis and that Alex Rhodes is not a clinician, but he is offering services sort of treating this as an addiction. This is one of those areas where when you look at the research, it’s not at all definitive in saying that porn is addictive, and so I worry a little that in highlighting what Rhodes is doing and the big following he has, that people might walk away thinking that it is an addiction when the actual medical community is not there based on the research. 

When you look at a lot of the data in this area, what we often see is that porn is more the symptom rather the cause of a lot of the issues people are experiencing. For example, they might have generalized sexual anxiety or moral conflicts, and those might really be the underlying cause. So to put this in the form of a question, what’s your take on the idea that we might be scapegoating porn because it’s an easy target rather than dealing with the underlying issues that might be driving people to porn in the first place?

Lisa Ling: You know, I am also not a clinician or a therapist, but if you talk to any pediatrician or you talk to a lot of parents, the moment their kids become exposed to pornography and how easily it’s accessible, whether they have underlying issues or not, it can cloud a young person’s judgment about what real sex is supposed to be like. And, you know, studies have shown that young people are having less sex than ever before. And one has to ask, “Well, what’s the reason for that?” Well, it’s probably because they can experience the extremes using their mobile devices. They don’t have to go through the anxiety of asking a girl out or dealing with rejection when they have everything that they need and more in their pocket, accessible at all times. 

So for me to boldly assert that it’s an addiction, that’s not something that we do in our episode. But there’s a reason why NoFap, that website, has a half a million people that are desperate. They’re coming to this website desperate for help from what they believe is an addiction.

Justin Lehmiller: I get that they’re perceiving porn as the cause of their problems, but it might not actually be the problem for them. So by going to these websites and resources that are not based in science and data, they might not actually be getting the help that they need to really deal with those issues. 

[Sidebar: Research suggests that porn access probably isn’t why young adults today are having less sex. Read my take on this idea here.]

Lisa Ling:  That’s true. That’s certainly true. And you know, I think NoFap, is very clear or it asserts that it’s not a medically sanctioned website. But what it is is people sharing what has been working for them. I think one of the reasons why it hasn’t been deemed a certified, bonafide addiction is because it’s harder to get information about how to stop. Right? And so people have had to resort to seeking out information on their own and seeking support from people who are going through the same thing. 

I mean, our second episode is about benzodiazepines—and these are some of the most widely prescribed medications on the planet, right? And doctors, in many cases, do not know how to taper people off of benzos. So what are people doing? They’re going to these non-medically sanctioned websites and getting information and learning these very meticulous taper methods that are saving their lives. None of them are medically sanctioned.

So if it’s working for people, and people are finding themselves in such a desperate situation, that they’re seeking out help and guidance from people they don’t even know because they’re not being offered the right kind of information from doctors, I mean, that’s kind of where we are with pornography. And also, let’s say you do believe you have an addiction and your insurance doesn’t pay for therapy. How are you ever going to get medical help when your insurance doesn’t cover it? You’re going to seek it out online amongst people who are dealing with the same things. 

Justin Lehmiller: I think we’re in agreement that we want people to be able to get help and to know that the help is going to work. But there’s also a really big impediment for us to having the accurate medical knowledge we need about pornography, which is that there’s really no federal funding available for people who want to do research on porn. And so there is sort of this roadblock if we want a design interventions or treatments or, you know, just really study porn. This is why I think our knowledge base is so limited and why a lot of these non-scientific, non-medical platforms are taking off. It’s, in part, because they’re filling this void that is not currently being addressed because there just isn’t the funding to do the research we need.

Lisa Ling: There’s the funding we need to do the research. And most of our insurance will not pay for the therapeutic services that people might need to even figure out what may have spurred someone to seek out porn. 

Justin Lehmiller: I think that’s a great point, that access to care is another big part of the issue that leads people to seek out these informal, non-medical platforms. With greater access to care, we could ensure that more people get the help they truly need, rather than feeling like their only option is to seek out information online that isn’t based in scientific research. 

Now, given all of the people out there claiming that porn is “addictive” and fundamentally damaging, some are calling for bans on pornography and restrictions on porn access. Do you think that bans and restrictions are the answer to these problems or do you think it’s really more about improving sex education and sexual communication? 

Lisa Ling: I think that we could ameliorate a good part of it by educating kids about what sex is really like and what it’s supposed to be like. I think that having those open conversations would do a lot for the issue—do a lot to alleviate some of the concerns. Porn is the only exposure some kids may be getting to sex. It’s inevitable that would skew your perception, you know? So I think opening up the dialogue would at least get us one step closer to having a more sort of normal perception of what sex is and what relationships should be.

Want to learn more about Sex and Psychology ? Click here for previous articles or follow the blog on Facebook (facebook.com/psychologyofsex), Twitter (@JustinLehmiller), or Reddit (reddit.com/r/psychologyofsex) to receive updates. You can also follow Dr. Lehmiller on YouTube and Instagram.

Image Source: CNN

You Might Also Like:

• What Counts as “Pornography?” It Depends Who You Ask

• The Truth About How Porn Affects Us

• How Is Porn Use Linked To Relationship Satisfaction? It’s Complicated

Do people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have a more difficult time being monogamous? Are they more inclined to be in sexually open relationships?

Sex therapist Ari Tuckman just published a book titled ADHD After Dark that explores these questions, as well as how ADHD impacts people’s sex lives and relationships more broadly. For this book, Tuckman surveyed more than 3,000 people who were in relationships in which one partner has ADHD and the other doesn’t in order to better understand when these relationships work—and when they don’t.  

One of the things Tuckman’s survey revealed was that persons with ADHD were more likely to have participated in both consensual nonmonogamy (i.e., being in some kind of sexually open relationship) and nonconsensual nonmonogamy (i.e., cheating or infidelity). Persons with ADHD also expressed more interest in having an open relationship compared to their non-ADHD counterparts.

I thought these findings were particularly interesting, so I asked Tuckman what he thought about how persons with ADHD might fare in a consensually nonmonogamous relationship. Below is an excerpt from our discussion (you can listen to our complete conversation in this podcast). Note that this transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

Justin Lehmiller: You mentioned how persons with ADHD expressed more interest in consensual non-monogamy and also that they had a harder time maintaining monogamy in the sense that they reported having been more likely to commit infidelity. This made me wonder whether polyamory or other forms of consensual nonmonogamy might be particularly well suited to persons with ADHD.

But, at the same time, it could be a double-edged sword. Something like polyamory could be a challenge for people who have time management issues, right? When you have more relationships to manage, that’s obviously going to take more time. So I’m curious: do you have any thoughts on that, or any insights into how persons with ADHD might fare in a consensually nonmonogamous relationship?

Ari Tuckman: First of all, I love the fact that you’ve kind of done a deep dive into this. I think it’s an interesting thing and I think that you’re absolutely right that, on the one hand, to effectively manage polyamorous relationships requires a lot of communication and coordination. Simplistically speaking, this could be a challenge for folks with ADHD. It’s hard enough for them to keep one partner happy, let alone keeping two or three or more happy.

And there is the risk of that sort of hyperfocus, which when you’re a kid might be on Minecraft. But as an adult, there’s the risk of hyperfocusing on that new, awesomely interesting partner to the exclusion of your older or more familiar partner(s). So that would require much more direct communication. And much more assertiveness on the part of the longer-term partner to say: “You know what, I love the fact that you’re having a great time with that new person, but I’m kind of feeling neglected right now. So, I’m not going to yell at you about it. I’m not going to be passive aggressive. I’m just going to speak my words, and we need to make sure that you and I are spending time together as well.”

I have zero data to back this up, but it’s possible in some ways that folks with ADHD might do better with certain kinds of consensual nonmonogamy. I’m thinking, in particular, that guys with ADHD who have much higher sex drives than their non-ADHD female partners might do better in more of a strictly sexual nonmonogamous relationship rather than a more intimate, polyamorous arrangement. I think there’s less complexity in that case. It might meet the higher-desire partner’s needs while ensuring that the lower-desire partner doesn’t feel constantly hounded and pushed to have sex that they’re not really in the mood for.

That said, I think to do consensual nonmonogamy well, you have to be doing a lot of things really well in your relationship. These couples in particular really need to be doing a lot of things well to even consider doing this. But I do think it’s a viable option for some.

Justin Lehmiller: You’ve just laid out some really fascinating hypotheses! As someone who studies consensual nonmonogamy, now I’m really interested in taking the role of ADHD into account in how these relationships work and how people navigate them. I’ve previously done research looking at how people’s personality traits, attachment styles, and so forth are linked to satisfaction and success in consensually nonmonogamous relationships, but not ADHD—at least not yet. That’s something I definitely need to look at in the future!

Ari Tuckman: I think it’s an interesting overlay on top of everything that you’ve already mentioned. I also think it’s interesting that my survey showed that folks with ADHD were more likely to have infidelities, including the physical, nonemotional hookups as well as the more emotional, affair kind of arrangements. Either way, we all know how devastating that can be. So the goal is to stop the nonconsensual nonmonogamy and, instead, to either have really good monogamy or to have really good consensual nonmonogamy. It’s all about the fact that—whatever it is—it should be consensual.

Listen to my full conversation with Tuckman here to learn more about how ADHD affects people’s sex lives and relationships.

Want to learn more about Sex and Psychology ? Click here for previous articles or follow the blog on Facebook (facebook.com/psychologyofsex), Twitter (@JustinLehmiller), or Reddit (reddit.com/r/psychologyofsex) to receive updates. You can also follow Dr. Lehmiller on YouTube and Instagram.

Image Source: 123RF

Check out more of my interviews with sex researchers and therapists in these posts:

• Better Sex Through Mindfulness: An Interview With Dr. Lori Brotto (VIDEO)

• Interview With The Sex Researcher: Dr. Nicole Prause

• Interview With The Sex Researcher: Dr. Zhana Vrangalova

I am pleased to announce the seventh annual SPSP Sexuality Pre-Conference! It will be held next February prior to the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Our last six pre-conferences were wildly successful and we are excited to further build on this tradition.

The next SPSP Sexuality Pre-Conference will take place on Thursday, February 27, 2020 at the Hyatt Regency in New Orleans. The theme will be “sex on the margins.”  We selected this theme in order to highlight sexual practices, movements, and identities that are often overlooked in mainstream research. Among the topics that will be highlighted in this pre-conference are bisexuality and Black women’s sexuality.

We will have three keynote speakers, who will offer attendees the opportunity to learn about cutting-edge research on a range of topics. Keynotes include:

Dr. Paz Galupo, Towson University

Dr. Galupo will be delivering a presentation on her program of research on bisexuality. She is the recipient of this year’s Excellence in Sexuality Research Award from the SPSP Sexuality Pre-Conference, which is generously sponsored by the American Institute of Bisexuality.

Dr. Lisa Wade, Occidental College, Author of the book American Hookup: The New Culture of Sex on Campus

Talk title: “On the Margins of Hookup Culture: Student Diversity and Sex on Campus”

Dr. Morgan Jerald, Macalester College

Talk title: “Multiply Marginalized: Gendered, Racial Stereotypes and Black Women’s Sexuality" 

As in previous years, there will be a sex data blitz in which a selected group of pre-conference attendees (advanced graduate students and faculty) will present some of their latest research findings in brief. This is always one of the major highlights of the day! There will also be a one-hour symposium in which 3-4 speakers will dig a little deeper into sexual diversity issues. There will also be a sexuality poster session.

To learn more about this exciting pre-conference, including information on registering and/or submitting a proposal for the data blitz, symposium, or poster session, please visit this site. Registration fees include breakfast, lunch, and two coffee breaks. 

Please note that registration is limited and available on a first-come-first-serve basis, so please register early to guarantee yourself a spot and also to take advantage of the earlybird discount!

If you’re already planning to attend SPSP, this is a great way to add some sex research to your program. And if you’re a sex educator, researcher, or therapist who doesn’t normally attend SPSP, this pre-conference is a great excuse to come check it out or, at the very least, to come visit New Orleans. Incidentally, the pre-conference just so happens to be during Mardi Gras week! Personally, I’ve never done Mardi Gras in New Orleans before, so I’m excited to check it out!

Although you do not need to register for the main SPSP conference in order to attend our pre-conference, we encourage you to attend both because your pre-conference attendance entitles you to a discount on registration for the main conference.

Hope to see you in New Orleans for a fantastic day of cutting-edge sex research! #SexAtSPSP #SPSP2020

Want to learn more about Sex and Psychology ? Click here for previous articles or follow the blog on Facebook (facebook.com/psychologyofsex), Twitter (@JustinLehmiller), or Reddit (reddit.com/r/psychologyofsex) to receive updates. You can also follow Dr. Lehmiller on YouTube and Instagram.

Sperm and other microscopic organisms don’t have an easy time traveling from Point A to Point B. When an organism is that small, traveling just one inch is actually an incredible undertaking because they’re fighting against much more resistance. So how do they do it?

The fascinating TED-Ed video below explains the science behind how sperm and many other microscopic organisms are ultimately able to travel great distances relative to their tiny size. This video will change the way that you think about sperm and how they move. A lot of people picture them simply waving their tails back and forth, but the actual movement they make is far more complex than that. Check out the full video to learn more.

Watch more videos on the science of sex here.

Want to learn more about Sex and Psychology ? Click here for previous articles or follow the blog on Facebook (facebook.com/psychologyofsex), Twitter (@JustinLehmiller), or Reddit (reddit.com/r/psychologyofsex) to receive updates. You can also follow Dr. Lehmiller on YouTube and Instagram.

Image Source: 123RF/razlomov

You Might Also Like:

• Sperm Cooperation: Sometimes Sperm Swim Together To Enhance Performance

• What Does (And Doesn’t) Impact Men’s Sperm Health

• Why We Still Don’t Have Birth Control For Men (Besides Condoms and Vasectomies)

The human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection and it’s responsible for a number of negative health effects. In addition to genital warts, it has the potential to cause a number of cancers, including those of the cervix, anus, and throat. A vaccine that can prevent HPV (and, therefore, its associated health problems) has been around for nearly a decade; however, it continues to be widely underutilized in the United States.

The HPV vaccine is most effective if administered in childhood before sexual activity begins and, thus, before any potential HPV exposure. While more parents are opting to have their kids vaccinated than ever, there are still millions who are going without and who will therefore be at risk for infection later in life. Specifically, what the latest data show is that just a bare majority—51.1%—of adolescents aged 13-17 are up to date on the vaccine series, which involves two to three shots administered over a period of several months. A larger number (68.1%) have received at least one shot; however, to get maximum protection for any vaccine, all required doses must be received.

Vaccination rates for adolescents vary widely across the country. For example, in some states—such as Texas, Indiana, South Carolina, and Kentucky—fewer than half of adolescents have received the vaccine. By contrast, in California, New York, and Massachusetts, more than 70% have received at least one dose. In other words, there’s even more room for improvement in some parts of the US.

In order to increase vaccination rates, we need to do a few things. First, we need to combat persistent myths and misconceptions, such as the claim that this vaccine poses serious health risks. The truth is that this vaccine is safe and effective, and no riskier than other vaccines [1]. Likewise, some people have expressed concerns about whether this vaccine will increase rates of risky sexual behavior; however, research has not found any support for that idea [2]. Adolescents aren’t making sexual decisions based on whether they’ve received this vaccine.

Second, physicians need better education about this vaccine because it turns out that many of them are engaging in behaviors that are discouraging teens from receiving it, such as not giving timely vaccine recommendations, failing to recommend same-day vaccination, and only recommending it to those deemed “at risk” [3].

Third, we need to get policy makers on board. There is a lot that states can do legislatively that have the potential to help, such as by creating policies that increase HPV awareness and that encourage vaccination. Efforts to mandate this vaccine have proved controversial; however, if politicians can at least work toward increasing awareness of HPV and reducing barriers to vaccination, that would be a big step in the right direction.

Lastly, it’s important to note that the HPV vaccine isn’t just for kids. Adults—who are even less likely to be vaccinated—can potentially benefit from it, too. Although this vaccine used to only be recommended for persons up to age 26, the recommended age has recently been expanded to 45. This doesn’t necessarily mean that effectiveness stops at 45—persons over that age can still get the vaccine and potentially benefit from it. The only issues are that insurance companies are unlikely to cover it if you’re over the recommend age and the vaccine may not provide as much protection (people who have been sexually active for a longer period of time are more likely to have already been exposed to some strains of HPV). That said, the point here is that we need to increase awareness of this vaccine beyond parents because it’s not just kids who will benefit from receiving it.

Want to learn more about Sex and Psychology ? Click here for previous articles or follow the blog on Facebook (facebook.com/psychologyofsex), Twitter (@JustinLehmiller), or Reddit (reddit.com/r/psychologyofsex) to receive updates. You can also follow Dr. Lehmiller on YouTube and Instagram.

[1] Reiter, P. L., Brewer, N. T., Gottlieb, S. L., McRee, A. L., & Smith, J. S. (2009). How much will it hurt? HPV vaccine side effects and influence on completion of the three-dose regimen. Vaccine, 27(49), 6840-6844.

[2] Smith, L. M., Kaufman, J. S., Strumpf, E. C., & Lévesque, L. E. (2015). Effect of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination on clinical indicators of sexual behaviour among adolescent girls: the Ontario Grade 8 HPV Vaccine Cohort Study. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 187(2), E74-E81.

[3] Gilkey, M.B. et al. (2015). Quality of physician communication about human papillomavirus vaccine: Findings from a national survey. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0326

Image Source: 123RF/Supak Katedee

You Might Also Like:

• Am I Too Old For The HPV Vaccine?

• Six Myths About Sexually Transmitted Infections Debunked

The traditional model of academic publishing restricts access to research by putting it in the hands of private companies. As a result, I’ve had to work hard to make my research available to those who wish to read it. I’ve done so by publishing accessible summaries on this blog, by publishing as much as I can in open-access journals, and by establishing profiles on file-sharing sites like Academia.Edu and ResearchGate, which allow you to store and share full-text uploads of papers with anyone. I will keep doing the first two going forward, but I’ve grown leery of the latter and have increasingly come to realize that these file-sharing websites aren’t an effective solution to the problems of academic publishing. In fact, I’ve grown quite concerned about these sites and have come to realize that academics need to pursue other means of sharing their work. Let me explain.

Before I go on, you may want to read this post first, which explains why I switched to publishing in open-access journals whenever possible. Long story short, academics have historically given their work away to big publishing houses for free (including the copyright to our research papers). The publishers have then turned around and sold our work to libraries and subscribers for exorbitant prices—and kept all the profits to themselves. The end result is that research is typically accessible only to those with the funds to access it. Academics have grown increasingly uncomfortable with this arrangement in recent years because we’re giving our work for free to companies that are severely limiting access to it while making billions of dollars.

By contrast, open-access papers can be freely viewed by anyone with an internet connection. This is great for the general public, which subsidizes most academic research in one form or another anyway. I mean, why should the public pay for research to be conducted, and then have to pay a middleman separately in order to access the results? Open-access is also great for students at universities that don’t have massive library budgets, as well as for scholars in developing countries where research resources are scarce. 

Getting back to AcademiaEdu and ResearchGate, these are online repositories where researchers can upload copies of all of their works, which others can freely access. In other words, they provide an avenue for widely sharing research. Of course—and as I noted above—with traditional publishing, we give the copyright to our work away to journal publishers, so we usually can’t upload the final version of our articles without violating copyright law. However, most publishing agreements I’ve seen permit researchers to share the pre-publication version of their papers (i.e., the basic-looking version that you create in Microsoft Word, not the pretty version formatted by the journal. Some will allow you to share the version that has been through peer review; however, others may not). 

I painstakingly reviewed all of my previous copyright transfer agreements and, in cases where it was permitted, I uploaded pre-publication versions of my articles to file-sharing sites like AcademiaEdu and ResearchGate. 

I guess I was naïve, though. Initially, I thought those sites were solutions to the problem of poor research access. However, I’ve come to learn that these are large and growing for-profit companies that, just like journal publishers, are harvesting free labor from academics. We’re building a massive research infrastructure for them, which they’re turning around and monetizing. These are multi-million dollar companies backed by venture capital firms that see big profit potential.

In supporting companies like AcademiaEdu and ResearchGate, we’re simply transferring power and control over access to research to another set of companies—companies that can and are looking for ways to cash in on that power. For example, AcademiaEdu is currently free to access, but has a “premium” subscription model. I’d bet good money that they’ll eventually start charging everyone for access once they have a big enough repository and user base. That would just put everything back behind a paywall, thereby defeating the purpose of why many of us joined the site in the first place.

I’m also concerned about other ways they’re trying to monetize their site. For example, in 2016, AcademiaEdu toyed with charging users to get their papers “recommended” on the site. Efforts like this would have the effect of pushing self-interest over scientific advancement by giving anyone the opportunity to promote their work regardless of its quality or merit. 

So how do we get around the problems that these sites create? Here are a few things you can do:

· Stop investing your time building up places like AcademiaEdu. They’re just taking your free labor and cashing in on it. This is a big part of the reason why I recently deleted my profile with them (I also deleted it because they’re poor at policing intellectual property infringement, but that’s a whole other story). AcademiaEdu and ResearchGate have done a brilliant job marketing themselves as noble causes—places where academics can go to share research—while hiding their real goal, which is building a massive research database curated by the world’s experts that they can cash in on. As I write this, ResearchGate is the 171st and Academia.edu is the 275th most visited website in the entire world. These are incredibly powerful companies we are unwittingly building up and we don’t know what they’re ultimately going to do with the fruits of our labor—other than turn it into a huge profit, of course.

· Unfortunately, there doesn’t yet exist a non-profit equivalent of AcademiaEdu that I’m aware of. However, until that exists, one option is to post pre-prints of your work on a site like PsyArxiv, which is run by the non-profit Center for Open Science. This can at least get your work out there in some form and it will be accessible to anyone online.

· Publish your research in open-access journals whenever possible. This is the best way of ensuring that your work remains free and easy to access for the long run. If an open-access journal requires a fee to publish, try to request a waiver or apply for a grant to cover the costs. I’ve been able to get several open-access papers published without paying one cent. It shouldn’t have to cost academics money to give their research away. 

· If your research is locked behind a paywall, review your copyright agreement(s) to see what kinds of information sharing are permissible. Odds are that there’s some version of the paper you can share freely. You can share these versions on your own personal website, put them out on social media, email them to anyone who requests them, and/or store them on professional websites. For example, if you have a profile on a site like the Social Psychology Network, you have a certain amount of storage available for sharing any files you wish.

· Take advantage of institutional repositories. A lot of colleges and universities have them, and depositing your research with them can make it easier for others to access your work. For example, the University of California repository is accessible to everyone, although you must be affiliated with that university to post your work in it.

· Blog about or otherwise publish accessible summaries of your research that the average person can understand. Making academic papers more widely available is great, but they’re often written with so much jargon that only our peers can decipher them. Accessible summaries can help others to better understand our work and why it’s important.   

These are just some of the alternatives that exist for getting science out there. We’d all do well to consider investing in them in the interest of ensuring freer and wider access to research for the long haul. If you have other tips or recommendations for sharing research, weigh in with your comments below.

Want to learn more about Sex and Psychology ? Click here for previous articles or follow the blog on Facebook (facebook.com/psychologyofsex), Twitter (@JustinLehmiller), or Reddit (reddit.com/r/psychologyofsex) to receive updates. You can also follow Dr. Lehmiller on YouTube and Instagram.

Image Source: 123RF/Wichapol Polpitakchai

You might also like:

• Why I Started Publishing In Open Access Journals, And Why You Should Too

• What Is It Like To Publish In An Open-Access Journal?