Intimacy Through Casual Sex: Relational Context of Sexual Activity and Affectionate Behaviours
Abstract
Little is known about the role of affectionate behaviours — factors traditionally understood within the context of romantic relationships — in uncommitted ‘casual sex’ encounters. In a sample of U.S. undergraduate emerging adults aged 18–25 years (N= 639) we conducted a preliminary internet-based questionnaire investigation into the role of affectionate behaviours — operationalised here as cuddling, spending the night and cuddling, foreplay, and eye gazing — across two sexual relationship contexts: (committed) traditional romantic relationships and (uncommitted) casual sex encounters. While affectionate behaviours were desired more often in romantic relationships than in casual sexual encounters, many respondents (both men and women) engaged in these affectionate behaviours during casual sexual encounters as well. This was especially pronounced in those who expressed a preference for casual sex encounters over romantic relationships: in a casual sex context these participants were about 1.5 times as likely to cuddle, 1.5 times as likely to spend the night and cuddle, and nearly 5 times as likely to engage in foreplay with a partner. The current study emphasises the importance of considering relationship context in sexuality and relationship research, and the need for further theoretical and empirical research on dimensions of intimacy, including affection, in people's diverse romantic and sexual lives.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Individuals motivated by situational factors were less sexually satisfied with the affair.
“On the other hand, those motivated by situational factors were less sexually satisfied with the affair, which was also short lived, in contrast with those in long-term committed relationships [66,67].”
From Love and Infidelity: Causes and Consequences (2023) · cites this paper as [66]
Affairs motivated by situational factors were short-lived, in contrast with those in long-term committed relationships.
“On the other hand, those motivated by situational factors were less sexually satisfied with the affair, which was also short lived, in contrast with those in long-term committed relationships [66,67].”
From Love and Infidelity: Causes and Consequences (2023) · cites this paper as [66]
Cites
A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007.
Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0017504 · Cited by 931 · see citing works
Hook-up behavior: A biopsychosocial perspective.
Garcia, J. R., & Reiber, C. (2008) · Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0099345 · Cited by 249 · see citing works
Self-citationEpstein, M., Calzo, J. P., Smiler, A. P., & Ward, L. M. (2009) · Journal of Sex Research · doi:10.1080/00224490902775801 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Lust? Love? Status?: Young Adults' Motives for Engaging in Casual Sex
Regan, P. C., & Dreyer, C. S. (1999) · Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality · doi:10.1300/j056v11n01_01 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Hooking up: Gender Differences, Evolution, and Pluralistic Ignorance
Reiber, C., & Garcia, J. R. (2010) · Evolutionary Psychology · doi:10.1177/147470491000800307 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Love and Infidelity: Causes and Consequences
Rokach, A., & Chan, S. H. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20053904 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
“On the other hand, those motivated by situational factors were less sexually satisfied with the affair, which was also short lived, in contrast with those in long-term committed relationships [66,67].”
ResultPrause, N. (2019) · Archives of Sexual Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10508-019-1397-6 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
- Authors
- Garcia, J. R., Gesselman, A. N., Massey, S. G., Seibold-Simpson, S. M., & Merriwether, A. M.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Binghamton University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Garcia, Justin R.
- Venue
- Journal of Relationships Research
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2018
- Volume
- 9
- ISSN
- 1838-0956 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2890361644
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 3.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Relationships Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Marriage and Sexual Relationships
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
- Keywords
- casual sex, intimacy, romantic relationships, sexual relationships, foreplay, emerging adults, relationship context, sexual desire
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review