Sex drive: Theoretical conceptualization and meta-analytic review of gender differences.

Abstract

Few spheres in life are as universally relevant for (almost) all individuals past puberty as sexuality. One important aspect of sexuality concerns individuals’ sex drive—their dispositional sexual motivation. A vigorous scientific (and popular) debate revolves around the question of whether or not there is a gender difference in sex drive. Several theories predict a higher sex drive in men compared to women, with some theories attributing this difference to biased responding rather than true differences. Currently, there is little consensus on how to conceptualize sex drive, nor does a quantitative summary of the literature exist. In this article, we present a theory-driven conceptualization of sex drive as the density distribution of state sex drive, where state sex drive is defined as momentary sexual motivation that manifests in sexual cognition, affect, and behavior. We conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis of gender differences in sex drive based on 211 studies, 856 effect sizes, and 621,463 persons. The meta-analysis revealed a stronger sex drive in men compared to women, with a medium-to-large effect size, g = 0.69, 95% CI [0.58, 0.81]. Men more often think and fantasize about sex, more often experience sexual affect like desire, and more often engage in masturbation than women. Adjustment for biased responding reduced the gender difference (g = 0.54). Moderation analyses suggest that the effect is robust and largely invariant to contextual factors. There was no evidence of publication bias. The discussion focuses on validity considerations, limitations, and implications for psychological theory and people’s everyday lives.

Developing a causally valid picture-story measure of sexual motivation: II. Effects of film clips.

“…In particular, assessment of sexual motivation and behavior per self-report is fraught with demand characteristics, self-presentational issues, defenses, introspective limitations, and other problems (Wiederman, 2002). The consistent difference between women and men in selfreports of sexual desire and behavior (women report less than men) illustrates this point (e.g., Frankenbach et al, 2022). Some researchers, therefore, question the validity of questionnaire measures of sexual motivation and behavior in general (e.g., Ågmo, 2007, p. 57;Le Moëne & Ågmo, 2019).…”

Developing a causally valid picture-story measure of sexual motivation: I. Effects of priming.

“…Once the final nSex coding system is established and the most suitable PSE pictures are selected, we aim to investigate gender differences in nSex. A recent meta-analysis focusing on self-report measures of sexual motivation and behavior revealed a stronger sex drive in men compared to women (Frankenbach et al, 2022) and it remains to be tested whether these findings can be replicated using the nSex PSE.…”

Moral disciplining: The cognitive and evolutionary foundations of puritanical morality

“…That is, if the principal aim of puritanical morals is to reduce the occurrence of "antisocial" acts that stem from indulging/expressing one's "hedonistic impulses" (related to sexual longings), the morals' proponents should channel the bulk of their puritan efforts toward the male libido. Not only is it rather clear that males have stronger desires Frankenbach, Weber, Loschelder, Kilger, & Friese, 2022), but males also appear to be more willing and able to use violent means (be it against their partners or their potential rivals) (e.g., see Buss [2012 for an overview) toward their sexual ends. Moreover, the contrasts in question are so strikingly clear that they cannot be ignored by any puritan scheme that runs on the functional logic Fitouchi et al stipulate.…”