Habituation of Sexual Responses in Men and Women: A Test of the Preparation Hypothesis of Women's Genital Responses

Abstract

Introduction Laboratory studies have revealed two well-replicated sex differences in sexual arousal patterns: category specificity and sexual concordance. Men's genital responses are dependent on specific sexual cues and are concordant with subjective reports of arousal. Women's genital responses are much less dependent on specific sexual cues and are much less concordant with their subjective reports. The preparation hypothesis provides a functional explanation for these sex differences and posits that women's genital responses are not tied to sexual preferences but rather occur automatically in the presence of any sexual cue to protect the genital tissues from injuries incurred through sexual activity. This hypothesis leads to the expectation that women's genital responses may not habituate as quickly or as completely as men's. Aim To determine whether there is a sex difference in the habituation of genital responses and to further test the preparation hypothesis of women's genital responses. Methods Twenty men and 20 women had their genital responses measured while they were exposed to nine consecutive presentations of the same erotic film clip (habituation), followed by two presentations of different erotic film clips (novelty), and followed by two presentations of the original erotic film clip (dishabituation). Main Outcome Measures Genital responses were measured continuously using penile strain gauges (assessing penile circumference) and vaginal probes (assessing vaginal pulse amplitude). Participants reported subjective sexual arousal, perceived genital arousal, and attention after each film clip presentation. Results Men and women displayed very similar patterns of genital responses, consistent with habituation and novelty effects. Effects of habituation and novelty were eliminated once subjective reports of attention were covaried. Conclusion Contrary to the prediction from the preparation hypothesis of women's genital responses, men's and women's responses showed similar patterns of habituation upon repeated exposure. Future research should attempt to maintain participants' attention in order to further test the preparation hypothesis.

Can habituation of sexual responses be elicited in men and women when attention is maintained?

“…The results of the present study replicate those of Dawson et al (2013) in that the genital responses of men and women declined significantly and similarly as a result of repeated exposure to sexual stimuli. This pattern was robust to a variety of scoring methods.…”

“…Interestingly, women appeared to be more sensitive to the subtle changes in the stimuli than men. This is consistent with the preparation hypothesis in that women more so than men should be aware of changes in stimuli, because Table 1 Effect Sizes ( 2 ) Associated With Habituation, Novelty, and Dishabituation Trials in Study 1 (Dawson et al, 2013) Note. 2 ϭ .01 (small), 2 ϭ .06 (medium), and 2 ϭ .14 (large) effect size values.…”

Gender Differences and Similarities in Sexual Desire

“…Studies of habituation to sexual stimuli in women and men demonstrate that genital [90][91][92][93][94][95][96] and subjective sexual arousal [90,91,[93][94][95][96] decline with repeated exposure to the same sexual stimulus, presumably because the hedonic quality associated with the stimulus changes as a function of repeated exposure. These studies also find that when novel stimuli are introduced, sexual arousal is restored [90][91][92][93][94][95][96]. Results from observational studies find a similar pattern; sexual desire can wane for both women and men in long-term relationships [56,57].…”

Men Ejaculate Larger Volumes of Semen, More Motile Sperm, and More Quickly when Exposed to Images of Novel Women

“…Previous studies have found evidence for sexual habituation in men. Male arousal, measured by penile tumescence, decreased upon repeated exposure to the same sexually explicit stimulus over shorter (i.e., less than 60 min; O'Donohue and Geer 1985; Plaud et al 1997;Koukounas and Over 2000;Dawson et al 2013) and longer time periods (i.e., 3-6 weeks; O'Donohue and Plaud 1994; Plaud et al 1997). In contrast, we did not find significant changes in any of the ejaculate parameters we measured between a man's first and sixth exposure to stimulus material involving the same actor and actress over an 11-14 day period.…”