Archives of Sexual Behavior (2019) 48:2461–2472

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01493-0

ORIGINAL PAPER

Women’s Sexual Satisfaction, Communication, and Reasons for (No

Longer) Faking Orgasm: Findings from a U.S. Probability Sample
Debby Herbenick1   · Heather Eastman‑Mueller1 · Tsung‑chieh Fu1 · Brian Dodge1 · Kia Ponander2 ·
Stephanie A. Sanders3,4

Received: 4 November 2017 / Revised: 9 May 2019 / Accepted: 10 June 2019 / Published online: 9 September 2019
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
We aimed to assess, among a U.S. probability sample of adult women: (1) the prevalence of, and reasons given for, faking and
no longer faking orgasm, (2) women’s histories of sexual non-communication and reasons for non-communication, (3) associa-
tions between sexual non-communication and sexual satisfaction and faking orgasm, (4) associations between specific sexual
communication and recent sexual satisfaction, and (5) associations between specific sexual communication and faking orgasm.
Respondents were 1008 adult women ages 18–94 from the GfK KnowledgePanel (a nationally representative probability sample
of non-institutionalized and English-speaking adults), who completed a confidential Internet-based survey. Although 58.8% of
female respondents reported having ever faked/pretended orgasm, 67.3% of those who had ever faked orgasm no longer did.
Women who continued to fake orgasms were more likely to indicate embarrassment talking about sex with their partner in explicit
ways and were less likely to agree that they and their partner are able to talk specifically about what makes sex more pleasurable
for them. More than half (55.4%) of women reported they had wanted to communicate with a partner regarding sex but decided
not to; the most common reasons were not wanting to hurt a partner’s feelings (42.4%), not feeling comfortable going into detail
(40.2%), and embarrassment (37.7%). Greater self-reported sexual satisfaction was associated with more comfortable sexual
communication. Study findings and implications for professionals are discussed in the context of adult sexual development and
learning. This includes growing more comfortable talking with a partner about sexual preferences and sexual pleasure.

Keywords  Female pleasure · Sexual communication · Sexual satisfaction · Probability sample · Faking orgasm

Introduction sex remains a taboo subject (Baxter & Wilmot, 1985) particu-
larly for women. Women’s sexual expression and satisfaction
Sexual satisfaction encompasses physical, emotional, psy- may be suppressed by social taboos related to female masturba-
chological and relational elements (Pronier & Monk-Turner, tion (Fahs & Frank, 2014), genital shame (Braun & Wilkinson,
2014; Tiefer, 2002). Further, the pursuit of a satisfying, safe, 2001; Frischherz, 2015), gender-based sexual scripts (Gagnon,
and pleasurable sexual life has been proposed as a sexual right 1990), and access to personal or sexual power or agency (Kiefer
(World Health Organization, 2010). However, in many places & Sanchez, 2007; Solomon, Knobloch, & Fitzpatrick, 2004).
globally (including the U.S., where the present study is based), Internalization of gender stereotypes may serve as potential
barriers to satisfying sexual health and communication, and
* Debby Herbenick thus negatively impact women’s sexual satisfaction (Fetterolf
[email protected] & Sanchez, 2015; Maas, Shearer, Gillen, & Lefkowitz, 2015).
Young women often feel unable to consistently assert their own
1
The Center for Sexual Health Promotion, Indiana University sexual rights, such as to tell a partner that they wish to make
School of Public Health, Room 116, Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN 47405, USA love differently or that a partner is being too rough (Rickert,
2 Sanghvi, & Wiemann, 2002).
Indiana University Health Center, Bloomington, IN, USA
However, most women report moderate to high levels of
3
Department of Gender Studies, Indiana University, sexual satisfaction. A large body of research in Australia, Fin-
Bloomington, IN, USA
land, the U.S. and the UK has examined predictors of greater
4
The Kinsey Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, sexual satisfaction, pleasure, and/or function. Such predictors
USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

2462 Archives of Sexual Behavior (2019) 48:2461–2472

include mutual love, more frequent intercourse, sexual vari- Gendered norms and sexual scripts that suggest women
ety, more frequent orgasm, emotional satisfaction, and hav- should pay less attention to their own sexual needs (and instead
ing grown up in a less reserved and non-religious childhood prioritize those of their partner) may contribute to the fact that
home (e.g., Haavio-Mannila & Kontula, 1997; Herbenick et al., most women, at least in convenience samples, report having
2010a; Mitchell et al., 2013; Richters, Grulich, deVisser, Smith, faked or pretended orgasm during their lifetime (e.g., Fahs,
& Rissel, 2003). 2011; Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010). Women’s reasons for
Sexual double standards continue to limit female sexual faking orgasm are multifaceted and may include a desire to
expression, inhibiting some women’s sexual communication please their partner, to protect their partners’ feelings, and to
and in particular their comfort level in receiving or asking for avoid injuring their partner’s sense of sexual expertise, as well
sexual pleasure (Armstrong, Hamilton, Armstrong, & Seeley, as to end a sexual encounter due to boredom or fatigue (Fahs,
2014; Fahs, 2011; Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010). However, 2011, 2014; Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010; Wiederman,
there have also been positive changes for American women in 1997). However, sexual communication in relation to faking
regard to sexual expression. Compared to Kinsey’s era when orgasm is less often studied. It is also not well understood how
only about half of women reported having masturbated (Kin- faking orgasm fits into women’s developmental trajectories
sey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953), more than 70% of of sexual exploration, including what influences women to
contemporary American women report engaging in masturba- stop faking orgasm. The present study expands the literature
tion (e.g., Herbenick et al., 2010b). About two-thirds of women by examining, in a U.S. probability survey, women’s lifetime
report experiencing orgasm in any given sexual event (Herben- prevalence of faking orgasm, the reasons women give for no
ick et al., 2010a). This suggests that most women feel entitled longer faking orgasm, and the associations between faking
to explore their own bodies and seek sexual pleasure during orgasm and sexual communication.
solo and partnered sexual experiences. Although women often The aims of the present research were to assess, among a
experience barriers to their sexual expression, it is also clear U.S. probability sample of adult women: (1) the prevalence
that many women navigate their relational and social worlds in of, and reasons given for, faking and no longer faking orgasm,
ways that help them to learn about sexuality and enhance their (2) women’s histories of sexual non-communication and rea-
sexual experiences. sons for non-communication, (3) sexual non-communication
While not all women feel that orgasm is important to their and associations with sexual satisfaction and faking orgasm,
sexual satisfaction, many do (see Laan & Rellini, 2011). The (4) associations between specific sexual communication and
likelihood of female orgasm during partnered sex is increased recent sexual satisfaction, and (5) associations between spe-
by sexual variety (Herbenick et al., 2010a) and novelty (Wat- cific sexual communication and faking orgasm.
son, Seguin, Milhausen, & Murray, 2016) and is more likely to
occur with a relationship partner than a new or hookup partner
(Armstrong, England, & Fogarty, 2012). Within a relationship, Method
partners are more likely to experience feelings of trust, sexual
exclusivity and security related to the future of their relation- Participants
ship; ongoing relationship partners also have more frequent
opportunities, via sexual events and communication, to learn Data for the present study were from a larger U.S. probabil-
about each other’s sexual response and preferences. Indeed, ity survey of American women (ages 18 +)—the OMGYes
women’s sexual communication has been positively associ- Sexual Pleasure Report, described in detail elsewhere (Her-
ated with their sexual satisfaction (Thomas, Hess, & Thurston, benick, Fu, Arter, Dodge, & Sanders, 2018)—focused on sex-
2015). However, sexual communication has been measured in ual pleasure, genital stimulation techniques, and orgasm. All
both broad and specific ways. In our study, we were interested study protocols and instruments were reviewed and approved
in specific forms of sexual communication. We chose to extend by the Institutional Review Board at the authors’ university.
the work of Kelly, Strassberg, and Turner (2004) who, in a The survey was fielded by the GfK corporation (Menlo Park,
campus and community study of man–woman couples, found CA) during a 2-week period in June 2015. We utilized GfK’s
that not only were difficulties in communication associated ­KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based web panel designed
with female anorgasmia, but that the association was particu- to be representative of the non-institutionalized U.S. popula-
larly strong for couples who were uncomfortable discussing tion and created through address-based sampling (ABS) by
sexual activities that involved direct clitoral contact. We also accessing the U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File. For
hoped to extend the literature by assessing women’s reasons households without Internet access, hardware and/or Internet
for inhibited sexual communication, such as embarrassment access were provided to minimize bias. GfK offers its panel
or not wanting to hurt a partner’s feelings, the latter having members points for survey participation; these points can be
previously been identified as a reason for pretending orgasm redeemed for merchandise or cash. No additional incentives
(e.g., Muehlenhard & Shippee, 2010). were offered. The GfK ­KnowledgePanel® is frequently utilized

13
Archives of Sexual Behavior (2019) 48:2461–2472 2463

by scientists to collect U.S. probability data on numerous top- Faking Orgasm, No Longer Faking Orgasm, and Associated
ics, including sexuality topics (e.g., Chang & Krosnick, 2009; Reasons
Eisenberg, Freed, Davis, Singer, & Prosser, 2011; Herbenick
et al., 2010a; Herek, 2009; Rothman, Edwards, Heeran, & Items related to faking orgasm and sexual communication were
Hingson, 2008; Yeager et al., 2011). developed based on the existing scientific literature, the authors’
The survey was cross-sectional, Internet-based, confidential combined decades of experience interviewing and teaching
(the researchers never had access to respondent identifiers), individuals of all ages about sexuality, as well as 10–40 min
and took about 10 min to complete. Survey invitations were interviews with 1000 + American women (diverse in terms of
distributed via email by GfK to 2416 female ­KnowledgePanel® age, race/ethnicity, and sexual identity) about sexual pleasure
members’ ages 18 + years, with follow up reminder emails sent and orgasm that were conducted in 2014–2015 by colleagues.
twice during the fielding period. As is common with GfK, the These colleagues participated in an iterative item development
survey invitations simply notified panel members that a new process with the first and fourth author.
survey was available to take, but did not describe the study Respondents were asked, “Have you ever faked an orgasm
topic. Of these, 1200 (49.7%) individuals clicked on the link to (pretended to have one when you didn’t really have one)?”
review the study topic and study information sheet and 1055 (yes—and I still fake orgasm; yes—I used to fake orgasm, but
(88% of those who clicked the link to read about the study topic; I don’t anymore; no—I’ve never faked orgasm). Those who
43.7% of those initially invited) then agreed to complete the indicated they had previously faked were asked, “You said you
survey. GfK prepared post-stratification statistical weights to used to fake orgasm but don’t anymore. Why did you stop fak-
correct for possible non-response, based on demographic vari- ing orgasm,” with the option to select all that applied of seven
ables (gender by age, race/ethnicity, education, census region, reasons and the ability to indicate “other” and write in a reason.
household income, and Internet access). They were also asked, “Thinking about the times you’ve faked
orgasms, why did you fake?” with five response options and
Measures again the option to indicate “other” and write in a reason. The
response options for these items are described below. Addition-
Demographic variables such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, edu- ally, respondents were also asked if they had ever masturbated
cation, household income, geographic region, and marital status shortly after sex (yes, no).
are collected by GfK as part of their panel recruitment and reten-
tion process and were provided to the research team. Sexual Non‑Communication and Reasons
for Non‑Communication
Sexual Behavior and Development
Respondents were asked, “Has there ever been a time when
Three sexual behavior items were adapted from the 2009 you wanted to tell a sexual partner how you wanted to be
National Survey of Sexual Health Behavior (NSSHB; Her- touched during sex, or what you desire or fantasize about, but
benick et al., 2010b). Respondents were asked “How recently you decided not to tell him/her?” (yes, no, or N/A—I have
have you had vaginal intercourse/received oral sex/had a part- never engaged in sexual activities with a partner). Those who
ner touch your vagina or vulva?” (in the past month, in the answered “yes” were asked “What made you decide not to tell
past year, more than a year ago, never done this). your sexual partner how you wanted to be touched during sex?”
Respondents were also asked, “How old were you when Respondents could endorse multiple reasons (see below Results
you first felt comfortable and confident telling a partner how and in the associated table).
you wanted to be touched or how you wanted to have sex?” and
“How old were you when you first felt like your sexual pleasure Recent Sexual Satisfaction
was valued by, or important to, a sexual partner?” Respondents
typed in a numerical answer and each question included an An item from the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI; Rosen
option to indicate they had never felt that way. Responses from et al., 2000) was asked of women who indicated they were dat-
1 through 6 were excluded from analyses due to a likelihood ing, in a relationship, or married: “Over the past 4 weeks, how
of being typographical errors (14 individuals were excluded satisfied have you been with your sexual relationship with your
from the item about comfort/confidence and 12 were excluded partner?” (very dissatisfied, moderately dissatisfied, equally
from the item about feeling their pleasure was valued; these satisfied and dissatisfied, moderately satisfied, very satisfied).
responses were recoded as missing). This led to responses This single-item measure has been used in other sexuality
reflecting ages 12 + remaining. research (e.g., Heiman et al., 2011; Levine, Herbenick, Mar-
tinez, Fu, & Dodge, 2018).

13

2464 Archives of Sexual Behavior (2019) 48:2461–2472

Specific Sexual Communication proportional odds assumption was not violated for the ordinal
logistic regression models.
Women were asked to indicate their level of agreement (strongly Multiple imputation methods by chained equations were
disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree) for the following used to account for missing data. For variables with more than
statements: (1) I find it easy to use words like “clitoris” when 2% missingness, we created 20 imputations. In addition to vari-
I talk with my partner about sex and pleasure; (2) My partner ables in the analytical model, we also included demographics,
and I are able to talk specifically about what makes sex more such as age, gender, education, race/ethnicity, and household
pleasurable for us; (3) It’s embarrassing to talk about sex with income in the imputation model. However, missing data were
my partner in explicit ways; and (4) I would rather not talk about rare in our study (missingness range 0.0–4.8%). All regression
sex with my partner(s); I think it should just come naturally to models were conducted using the imputed dataset to account
us. The Cronbach alpha for these four sexual communication for missing data.
items was 0.74.

Statistical Analysis Results

Analyses were conducted using the Stata version 14 software Respondent Characteristics
(StataCorp, 2015). Given the focus of the study on partnered
experiences, we limited analyses to women who reported ever Of the 1055 women aged 18–94 who completed the sur-
having engaged in vaginal intercourse, receptive oral sex, or vey, 47 reported no partnered sex (as described above) and
who had received vulva/vagina touching from a partner. were excluded from subsequent analysis. This resulted in an
Weighted descriptive statistics were calculated for socio- unweighted sample of 1008 women and a weighted sample of
demographic characteristics of the analytic sample, as well as 999 women. Consistent with U.S. demographics, about two-
for the prevalence of, and reasons for, faking (and no longer thirds (n = 663) of women were White/non-Hispanic, 60.5%
faking) orgasm. Weighted descriptive statistics were also calcu- (n = 603) had some college education or higher, most (92.9%,
lated for reasons for sexual non-communication. Subsequently, n = 919) self-identified as heterosexual, and over half (55.7%,
reasons for sexual non-communication were examined across n = 552) were currently married (Table 1).
age groups and assessed for their associations with sexual sat- The median age that women reported first feeling comfort-
isfaction and faking orgasms. To identify reasons for sexual able and confident telling a partner how they wanted to be
non-communication that are associated with sexual satisfac- touched or have sex was 25 (IQR = 25–30; range = 12–65),
tion and faking orgasms, separate univariate models were con- while 21.1% (n = 194) of women reported never having felt
ducted (data not shown). To account for multiple comparisons, this way. The median age that women first felt that their sexual
a Bonferroni correction was applied so that the new threshold pleasure was valued by or important to a sexual partner was
of statistical significance used was p < .002 (0.05/24 = 0.002). 23 (IQR = 20–28; range = 12–65, mean = 25.0), while 11.1%
Reasons univariately associated with either sexual satisfaction (n = 102) reported never feeling this way.
or faking orgasms were entered into a multivariate model to
control for potential confounding due to age and current rela- The Prevalence, and Reasons for, Faking Orgasm
tionship status. and No Longer Faking Orgasm
Levels of agreement with various specific sexual commu-
nication statements were assessed for their association with Although more than half of respondents (58.8%; n = 571) had
sexual satisfaction and faking orgasms, adjusting for categorical ever faked orgasm, only 19.2% of the total sample (n = 187;
age groups and current relationship status. We were interested or 1/3 of those who had ever faked) still did (Table 2). Two-
in sexual communication as part of women’s developmental thirds (67.3%) of those who had ever faked orgasm no longer
trajectories; therefore, we adjusted for age. Our study design did. The most common reasons for no longer faking were:
involves women who have had sexual experiences before but feeling more comfortable now with sex, whether or not they
may not be currently sexually active, therefore, we also con- have an orgasm (46.6%, n = 178); feeling more confident with
trolled for current relationship status. Ordinal logistic regres- themselves as a woman (35.3%, n = 135); and feeling like their
sion was used when assessing relationships with levels of partner accepts them and is happy with them, even if they don’t
recent sexual satisfaction, and multinomial logistic regression have an orgasm (34.0%, n = 130). About 8.9% provided other
was used when assessing relationships with experiences of fak- reasons. Specifically, they: had a different partner (n = 12),
ing orgasms (never faked orgasms/used to fake orgasms/still now had sex with women or were “no longer straight” (n = 2),
fake orgasms). Results with p < .05 were considered statisti- started experiencing orgasms often and/or during intercourse
cally significant. Brant tests were conducted to ensure that the (n = 4), or various idiosyncratic reasons (e.g., just got fed up
with faking; quit using alcohol; I am no longer worried about if

13
Archives of Sexual Behavior (2019) 48:2461–2472 2465

Table 1  Weighted demographic and sexual characteristics of partner to know that he isn’t doing it right; it did not feel true to
respondents reporting lifetime sexual activity the relationship I was trying to build with my partner).
Characteristics Total The most common reasons women gave for having previ-
women ously faked orgasm were because they wanted their partner
(n = 999) to feel successful (57.1%, n = 218), they wanted sex to end
% (n)
because they were tired (44.6%, n = 170), and they liked the
Age person and didn’t want them to feel bad (37.7%, n = 144). Some
 18–24 7.7 (77) of the women who provided additional reasons indicated that
 25–29 10.3 (102) they didn’t know what an orgasm was supposed to be like, a
 30–39 16.7 (166) partner “almost demanded them,” they wanted sex to be over
 40–49 16.5 (164) “so he would leave me alone,” difficulty having orgasm due to
 50–59 20.3 (202) being an incest survivor, being “young and insecure,” being
 60–69 19.1 (190) “young and thought I was ‘suppose’ to,” and no longer being
 70 + 9.6 (96) in love with a partner. Finally, 38.2% (n = 372) of women indi-
Race/ethnicity cated they had ever masturbated shortly after sex.
 White, non-Hispanic 66.4 (663)
 Black, non-Hispanic 12.3 (122)
 Other, non-Hispanic 6.3 (63) Sexual Non‑Communication and Reasons
 Hispanic 13.7 (137) for Non‑Communication
 Multiple races/ethnicities 1.3 (13)
Education As shown in Table 3, more than half of women (55%; n = 528)
 Less than high school 11.6 (116) reported they had wanted to communicate with a partner regard-
 High school 28.0 (280) ing sex but decided not to. The most commonly endorsed rea-
 Some college 30.0 (299) sons were: “I didn’t want to hurt their feelings” (42%, n = 221),
 Bachelor’s degree or higher 30.5 (304) “I didn’t feel comfortable going into detail” (40%, n = 209), and
Household income “I would have felt embarrassed” (38%, n = 196). The youngest
 < $25,000 20.1 (200) respondents (18–24 years olds) were significantly more likely
 $25,000–$49,999 23.2 (232) to indicate they didn’t know how to ask for what they wanted,
 50,000-$74,999 17.7 (177) were worried about being rejected, and didn’t think they would
 ≥ $75,000 39.0 (390) sleep with this partner again, so it didn’t matter.
Geographic region
 Northeast 18.2 (182)
 Midwest 21.4 (214) Sexual Non‑Communication and Associations
 South 37.4 (373) with Recent Sexual Satisfaction and Faking Orgasm
 West 23.0 (230)
Sexual orientation Reasons for non-communication significantly associated with
 Heterosexual 92.9 (919) recent sexual satisfaction or faking orgasms were assessed in a
 Lesbian/gay 1.6 (16) multivariate model also adjusting for age and current relation-
 Bisexual 5.0 (49) ship status (Table 4). Not communicating due to feeling uncom-
 Asexual 0.4 (4) fortable going into detail about sex or not thinking one’s partner
 Other 0.2 (2) would care about their pleasure were significantly associated
Current relationship status with lower sexual satisfaction in the past 4 weeks. Not com-
 Single and not dating 19.5 (194) municating due to concerns about one’s partner thinking they
 Single and dating 5.0 (50) are “perverted” was significantly associated with still faking
 In a relationship but not living together 6.7 (69) orgasm, even after controlling for age and relationship status.
 In more than one relationship 0.5 (5)
 Living together but not married 12.3 (122) Associations Between Specific Sexual
 Married 55.7(552) Communication and Recent Sexual Satisfaction

it will upset my partner if I do not achieve an orgasm; I choose The relationship between specific kinds of sexual communi-
partners now that are more mature and I am more in tune with cation and recent sexual satisfaction was assessed (Table 5).
myself and confident; I’m with the one I love; no longer with Women who strongly agreed that they find it easy to use words
controlling ex; only faked because I wasn’t into it; I want my like “clitoris” to communicate with their partners were more

13

2466 Archives of Sexual Behavior (2019) 48:2461–2472

Table 2  Faking orgasm: Women

Prevalence and reasons % (n)

Ever faked orgasm (n = 970)

 Yes—and I still fake orgasm 19.2 (187)
 Yes—I used to fake orgasm, but I don’t anymore 39.6 (384)
 No—I’ve never faked orgasm 41.2 (399)
Reasons for stopping to fake orgasms (n = 383a)
 I learned how to have orgasms more consistently, so I didn’t need to fake anymore 28.8 (110)
 I feel more comfortable now with sex, whether or not I have an orgasm 46.6 (178)
 My partner started paying better attention to my needs and learned to pleasure me 23.4 (90)
 I no longer feel pressured to have an orgasm 30.9 (119)
 I feel more confident with myself as a woman 35.3 (135)
 I feel like my partner accepts me and is happy with me, even if I don’t have an orgasm 34.0 (130)
 I am no longer sexually active, so I don’t have the opportunity to fake anymore 18.2 (70)
 Other, please describe 8.9 (34)
Reasons for faking orgasms (n = 383a)
 You really liked the person and didn’t want them to feel bad 37.7 (144)
 You were hopeful that, with practice, the person could learn to give you an orgasm 22.9 (88)
 You wanted sex to end because you were tired 44.6 (170)
 You wanted sex to end because it didn’t feel good 28.5 (109)
 You wanted your partner to feel successful 57.1 (218)
 Other, please describe 2.8 (11)
Ever masturbated shortly after sex (n = 974)
 Yes 38.2 (372)
 No 61.8 (602)
a
 Total n does not add up to 384 due to missing data

Table 3  Reasons for non-communication in relation to respondent age

Variables Total Age (years)
18–24 25–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70 +
% (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)

Wanted to communicate with partner regarding sex 55.4 (528) 60.6 (46) 48.4 (48) 65.4 (105) 53.3 (83) 53.9 (103) 50.5 (91) 57.5 (52)
but decided not to
Reasons for not communicating with sexual partner
 I didn’t want to hurt their feelings 42.4 (221) 53.3 (25) 36.2 (17) 42.7 (43) 38.2 (32) 47.5 (49) 37.7 (34) 42.6 (22)
 I didn’t feel comfortable going into detail 40.2 (209) 59.5 (27) 28.6 (14) 41.8 (42) 39.9 (33) 38.9 (40) 37.9 (34) 38.2 (19)
 I would have felt embarrassed 37.7 (196) 49.1 (23) 41.3 (20) 40.5 (40) 49.0 (40) 26.7 (27) 34.6 (31) 27.6 (14)
 I didn’t know how to ask for what I wanted* 35.0 (182) 58.4 (27) 41.7 (20) 36.2 (36) 30.7 (25) 21.3 (22) 39.8 (36) 31.4 (16)
 I didn’t want to seem too demanding 18.3 (95) 35.2 (16) 21.6 (10) 17.8 (18) 16.7 (14) 13.6 (14) 16.1 (15) 16.6 (8)
 It didn’t feel important enough to bring up 17.9 (93) 24.1 (11) 22.2 (11) 18.0 (18) 14.1 (12) 17.3 (18) 13.7 (12) 23.2 (12)
 I was worried about being rejected* 11.7 (61) 29.8 (14) 2.0. (1) 18.6 (19) 9.1 (8) 9.1 (9) 9.5 (9) 4.0 (2)
 I didn’t think they would understand 10.2 (53) 7.9 (4) 12.7 (6) 14.7 (15) 9.1 (7) 5.2 (5) 10.5 (10) 12.0 (6)
 I didn’t want my partner to think I was perverted 10.1 (52) 20.5 (9) 5.0 (2) 10.5 (10) 11.8 (10) 9.5 (10) 9.2 (8) 4.7 (2)
 I didn’t think my partner would care that much 7.0 (36) 2.1 (1) 0.0 (0) 11.9 (12) 7.9 (4) 4.4 (5) 7.5 (7) 11.1 (6)
about my pleasure
 I didn’t think I would sleep with this partner 3.6 (19) 14.1 (6) 0.0 (0) 2.5 (3) 2.6 (2) 3.7 (4) 4.2 (4) 0.0 (0)
again, so it didn’t matter*

*p < .05 by chi-squared test assessing association with age groups

13
Archives of Sexual Behavior (2019) 48:2461–2472 2467

Table 4  Reasons for not communicating with sexual partner as associated with sexual satisfaction and faking orgasms, controlling for age and
relationship status
Variables Sexual satisfaction in the past Used to fake versus never Still fake versus never faked
4 weeks faked orgasms orgasms
aOR (95% CI) p value aOR (95% CI) p value aOR (95% CI) p value

I didn’t feel comfortable going into detail 0.49 (0.36–0.67) < .001 – – – – – –

I didn’t think my partner would care that much 0.33 (0.19–0.57) < .001 – – – – – –
about my pleasure
I didn’t want my partner to think I was perverted – – – 2.06 (0.86–4.96) .104 3.06 (1.42–6.58) .005
Age (years)
 18–24 1.00 – – 1.00 – – 1.00 – –
 25–29 1.15 (0.35–3.76) .817 2.05 (0.65–6.47) .214 0.85 (0.18–3.93) .827
 30–39 0.35 (0.12–0.99) .049 1.73 (0.63–4.74) .283 1.70 (0.71–4.09) .227
 40–49 0.40 (0.14–1.20) .100 1.33 (0.51–3.46) .551 1.26 (0.52–3.02) .603
 50–59 0.63 (0.22–1.78) .379 1.36 (0.52–3.54) .518 0.72 (0.28–1.79) .461
 60–69 0.45 (0.15–1.37) .154 1.66 (0.70–3.91) .241 0.86 (0.31–2.40) .764
 70 + 0.58 (0.16–2.165) .411 1.08 (0.32–3.66) .901 0.73 (0.21–2.59) .625
Current relationship status
 Single, not dating 1.00 – – 1.00 – –
 Dating/in a relationship, not living together 1.00 – – 1.76 (0.66–4.65) .249 1.58 (0.57–4.33) .369
 Living together, not married 0.55 (0.26–1.16) .112 1.07 (0.49–2.33) .853 0.65 (0.25–1.67) .363
 Married 0.84 (0.43–1.66) .608 1.02 (0.59–1.76) .944 0.89 (0.44–1.80) .750

Odds ratios adjusted for all other variables in the table

likely to report higher levels of sexual satisfaction compared to Discussion

those who strongly disagreed (Table 6). Women who agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement “my partner and I are able to Findings from the current study are drawn from a U.S. nation-
talk specifically about what makes sex more pleasurable for us” ally representative probability sample of adult women spanning
were more likely to report greater recent sexual satisfaction com- eight decades of life. They add to a growing body of literature
pared to those who strongly disagreed. Embarrassment talking that addresses sexual satisfaction, sexual development, learn-
with one’s partner in explicit ways was consistently associated ing, and change. Traditional narratives about women faking
with decreased levels of recent sexual satisfaction. orgasm become more complicated when considering that fak-
ing orgasm is often part of women’s sexual development. These
Associations Between Specific Sexual experiences may reflect a process of learning about one’s own
Communication and Faking Orgasm sexuality, body, assertiveness, partner selection, sexual com-
munication, and self-confidence.
The relationship between sexual communication and fak- Two-thirds of women who have faked orgasms in the past
ing orgasms was assessed (Table 6). Women who strongly do not continue to do so. They stop pretending orgasm for var-
agreed that they find it easy to use words like “clitoris” to talk ied reasons, most often due to greater sexual comfort, confi-
about sex were less likely to still fake orgasms than those who dence, and feelings of being accepted by one’s partner. This
strongly disagree. Those who agreed or strongly agreed that finding extends into early adulthood a previously noted aspect
“my partner and I are able to talk specifically about what makes of adolescent development described by Hensel, Fortenberry,
sex more pleasurable for us” were significantly less likely to O’Sullivan, and Orr (2011): that sexual openness and esteem
still fake orgasms compared to those who disagreed. Higher often increase over several years while sexual anxiety decreases.
levels of agreement with the statement “it’s embarrassing to In spite of the many challenges that women experience relevant
talk about sex with my partner in explicit ways” was signifi- to gendered norms and traditional scripts that minimize the role
cantly associated with currently still faking orgasms and also of female sexual pleasure and agency, the story our data and
faking orgasms in the past. others’ tell is one of women’s persistence, growth, learning, and
curiosity. Our findings evoke ideas of women navigating paths
through relationships, love, and power differentials to explore
and connect with their sexuality. In open-ended responses,

13

2468 Archives of Sexual Behavior (2019) 48:2461–2472

Table 5  Specific sexual communication and sexual satisfaction

Variables Sexual satisfaction in the past 4 weeks Association with sexual satis-
faction in the past 4 weeks
Very dissatisfied Moderately Equally satisfied Moderately satisfied Very satisfied
dissatisfied and dissatisfied
% (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) aOR (95% CI) p value

I find it easy to use words like “clitoris” when I talk with my partner about sex and pleasure
 Strongly disagree 27.4 (22) 11.8 (9) 15.2 (20) 17.8 (36) 13.4 (35) 1.00 – –
 Disagree 30.3 (25) 33.5 (26) 38.1 (49) 35.6 (73) 28.2 (74) 1.16 (0.77–1.75) .459
 Agree 29.2 (24) 36.5 (28) 34.9 (45) 34.2 (70) 37.7 (100) 1.50 (0.96–2.34) .071
 Strongly agree 13.1 (11) 18.2 (14) 11.8 (15) 12.5 (26) 20.8 (55) 1.77 (1.15–2.72) .010
My partner and I are able to talk specifically about what makes sex more pleasurable for us
 Strongly disagree 32.2 (26) 4.0 (3) 6.9 (9) 8.6 (17) 6.3 (17) 1.00 – –
 Disagree 33.2 (27) 42.1 (33) 33.7 (44) 33.1 (67) 13.4 (36) 1.32 (0.74–2.37) .340
 Agree 25.2 (21) 47.1 (37) 46.9 (61) 43.1 (87) 45.4 (120) 2.69 (1.58–4.60) .001
 Strongly agree 9.4 (8) 6.9 (5) 12.5 (16) 15.3 (31) 34.9 (92) 6.46 (2.99–13.94) < .001
It’s embarrassing to talk about sex with my partner in explicit ways
 Strongly disagree 18.1 (15) 17.7 (14) 17.4 (23) 25.4 (51) 35.5 (94) 1.00 – –
 Disagree 27.7 (23) 33.4 (26) 35.2 (46) 37.6 (76) 37.8 (100) 0.70 (0.49–1.01) .055
 Agree 39.1 (32) 36.4 (29) 38.5 (50) 29.9 (60) 20.4 (54) 0.40 (0.28–0.56) < .001
 Strongly agree 15.1 (12) 12.5 (10) 8.8 (11) 7.2 (15) 6.4 (17) 0.32 (0.16–0.63) .002
I would rather not talk about sex with my partner(s); I think it should just come naturally to us
 Strongly disagree 21.1 (17) 14.4 (11) 15.6 (20) 22.9 (46) 33.2 (88) 1.00 – –
 Disagree 31.2 (26) 46.7 (36) 37.2 (48) 36.5 (74) 36.4 (96) 0.58 (0.40–0.85) .006
 Agree 41.8 (34) 33.1 (26) 40.4 (52) 33.0 (67) 23.2 (61) 0.42 (0.29–0.60) < .001
 Strongly agree 5.9 (5) 5.9 (5) 6.8 (9) 7.6 (15) 7.2 (19) 0.69 (0.42–1.13) .136

Odds ratios adjusted for age (categorical) and current relationship status

women also wrote about gendered dynamics in relationships through friends, partners, or sexuality-related media), explor-
as well as aspects of their sexual selves that they connected ing one’s own body alone or with a partner to discover one’s
to youth, inexperience, and/or unhealthy relationships. As sexual response and preferred stimulation techniques, and being
these responses were limited in number (e.g., they were vol- encouraged, rewarded, or at least not shamed by a partner for
unteered in text responses and these particular constructs were sharing one’s preferences.
not assessed sample-wide), subsequent research might explore As Tolman (1994) and Fine (1988) have noted, young
these aspects of women’s sexual development in more system- women are often not supported in learning how to give voice
atic ways. to their sexual desires or pleasures, which can impact adult
Further, the present study adds to the literature by showing, sexual development and experience. One of the more striking
among the general population of women in the U.S., some of findings in our study is that women are, on average, in their
the kinds of sexual communication (and non-communication) mid-twenties before they feel comfortable and confident shar-
linked to women’s sexual satisfaction and orgasm experience. ing how they would like to be touched or have sex, as well as
Consistent with previous research (e.g., Hurlbert, 1991; Mitch- before they feel like their sexual pleasure has been valued by a
ell et al., 2013; Richters et al., 2014), we found that ease of partner. Also, about 1 in 5 women in our study still did not feel
sexual communication is associated with higher levels of wom- comfortable and confident discussing their sexual preferences
en’s self-reported sexual satisfaction. This finding is congruent and 1 in 10 had yet to feel that their sexual pleasure mattered
with the idea that sexual partners benefit by sharing detailed to a partner. American women’s average age of first coitus is at
directions or preferences with one another in order to guide around age 16 or 17 (Goldberg, Haydon, Herring, & Halpern,
stimulation on distal parts of their bodies. As suggested by Hen- 2014; Martinez, Copen, & Abma, 2011), with many young
sel et al. (2011), feeling capable, comfortable and/or confident women reporting other partnered sexual activities (such as oral
communicating with a partner in sexually explicit ways likely sex or partnered masturbation) prior to that (Fortenberry et al.,
builds on a variety of knowledge, experiences, and skills. These 2010). Thus, young women commonly engage in varied kinds
may include learning a vocabulary for sexual acts and geni- of partnered sex for nearly a decade before they feel like their
tal parts (formally through education programs or informally sexual pleasure matters to a partner—if they ever do.

13
Archives of Sexual Behavior (2019) 48:2461–2472 2469

Table 6  Specific sexual communication and faking orgasms

Variables Faking orgasms Used to fake orgasms ver- Still fake orgasms versus
sus never faked orgasms never faked orgasms
Never faked orgasms Used to fake orgasms Still fake orgasms
% (n) % (n) % (n) aOR (95% CI) p value aOR (95% CI) p value

I find it easy to use words like “clitoris” when I talk with my partner about sex and pleasure
 Strongly disagree 15.5 (59) 13.4 (51) 22.8 (42) 1.00 – – 1.00 – –
 Disagree 31.6 (120) 32.5 (124) 32.6 (60) 1.27 (0.77–2.08) .335 0.76 (0.41–1.42) .381
 Agree 37.4 (142) 37.5 (143) 34.5 (64) 1.17 (0.70–1.95) .538 0.65 (0.37–1.16) .140
 Strongly agree 15.5 (59) 16.6 (63) 10.0 (19) 1.16 (0.58–2.32) .679 0.42 (0.19–0.90) .027
My partner and I are able to talk specifically about what makes sex more pleasurable for us
 Strongly disagree 11.2 (42) 7.5 (28) 18.1 (34) 1.00 – – 1.00 – –
 Disagree 25.5 (97) 26.2 (99) 27.3 (51) 1.59 (0.92–2.77) .098 0.69 (0.38–1.24) .209
 Agree 42.0 (160) 46.4 (175) 42.4 (79) 1.66 (1.00–2.75) .052 0.61 (0.38–0.97) .038
 Strongly agree 21.3 (81) 19.9 (75) 12.3 (23) 1.31 (0.77–2.35) .364 0.30 (0.15–0.57) .001
It’s embarrassing to talk about sex with my partner in explicit ways
 Strongly disagree 31.3 (119) 22.5 (86) 18.3 (34) 1.00 – – 1.00 – –
 Disagree 34.6 (131) 38.9 (148) 35.8 (67) 1.57 (0.99–2.51) .057 1.78 (1.16–2.74) .010
 Agree 26.4 (100) 29.5 (112) 35.9 (67) 1.59 (0.99–2.54) .054 2.44 (1.63–3.66) < .001
 Strongly agree 7.7 (29) 9.1 (35) 10.0 (19) 1.72 (0.96–3.10) .067 2.18 (1.19–3.99) .013
I would rather not talk about sex with my partner(s); I think it should just come naturally to us
 Strongly disagree 27.2 (103) 22.9 (87) 21.6 (40) 1.00 – – 1.00 – –
 Disagree 35.6 (135) 39.6 (150) 37.5 (70) 1.35 (0.95–1.92) .091 1.41 (0.85–2.34) .178
 Agree 29.9 (114) 30.9 (117) 37.9 (71) 1.28 (0.76–2.16) .339 1.72 (1.08–2.73) .024
 Strongly agree 7.3 (28) 6.6 (25) 3.1 (6) 1.08 (0.53–2.18) .828 0.58 (0.24–1.39) .216

Odds ratios adjusted for age (categorical) and current relationship status

Subsequent Research reasons? And how can sexual health educators, clinicians, and
even policy makers (e.g., in the case of school-based sexuality
Research on midlife couples indicates that valuing a partner’s education) better support women in their sexual learning and
orgasm is significantly associated with greater sexual satis- development?
faction as well as relationship duration (Heiman et al., 2011).
Subsequent research might explore how women’s sexual devel- Implications
opmental pathways might be influenced by earlier experiences
of feeling like their pleasure, orgasm, or subjective experience Findings from our study underscore the importance of open and
of sex matters to, or is validated by, their sexual partner(s). frank conversations about the vulva, clitoris, vagina, and sexual
Additionally, such research might investigate these years during stimulation, which has important implications for sexuality
young adulthood more closely: after adolescence, how do adult educators and clinicians (see Kelly et al., 2004). Sexuality edu-
women continue to assemble new pieces of knowledge, skills, cators might consider how lesson plans can be adjusted to grow
bodily changes, and solo and partnered experiences to adjust both knowledge and comfort related to talking about the clitoris
their sexual repertoires, orgasm experiences, and sexual partner and other detailed ways of talking about sexual stimulation, par-
and/or relationship choices? What kinds of education, media, ticularly given other research showing that most women report
art, or conversations among one’s family, friends, or sexual having specific preferences for genital stimulation in terms of
partners might enhance women’s sexual agency and pleasure? location, shape/style of touch, and pressure (Herbenick et al.,
Additionally, subsequent research might pay particular atten- 2018). Clinicians can support healthy sexual development by
tion to the 19% of women who continue to fake orgasm. Beyond encouraging direct conversations around the body and sexual-
youth and inexperience, why do women continue to pretend ity (as well as utilizing accurate language for the vulva, vagina,
to have a sexual experience that they are not indeed having? clitoris, and labia), making space for these critical conversa-
How is persistent faking tied into women’s fears of rejection tions during clinical examinations from adolescence through
or partner infidelity, their ideas of femininity or “good sex,” older age (Alexander et al., 2014; Haider et al., 2017). Clinical
or their desire to end a sexual encounter for any number of examinations may play an important role in women’s learning

13

2470 Archives of Sexual Behavior (2019) 48:2461–2472

vocabulary related to their bodies and in becoming comfortable questionnaire-based data collection, we were unable to clarify
using such terms. Individuals who make decisions regarding questions that respondents may have had about items. Addi-
sexuality education in schools (e.g., policymakers, parents, tionally, due to space limitations, we utilized a single-item
school personnel, sexuality educators, and health educators) measure of sexual satisfaction that has been used in previous
would be wise to focus on increasing fact-based sexual edu- research (e.g., Heiman et al., 2011; Levine, Herbenick, Mar-
cation, sexual communication, and comfort (e.g., Braeken & tinez, Fu, & Dodge, 2018). Even though single-item measures
Cardinal, 2008; Kontula, 2010). of sexual satisfaction have been found to positively correlate
Our data also have implications for the general population, with multi-item measures of sexual satisfaction (e.g., Mark,
the millions of women and men who would benefit from being Herbenick, Fortenberry, Sanders, & Reece, 2014), it is pos-
more receptive to their partners’ attempts to communicate sible that results may have differed had a multi-item measure
about sex, pleasure, and techniques with them. Listening to a been used as in the FSFI. We also utilized items about women’s
partner’s desires, and responding favorably to them (whether current experiences with sexual communication to examine dif-
by reserving judgment or acting on the partner’s requests, if ferences between those who used to fake orgasm and those who
agreeable, to engage in certain kinds of touch, stimulation, or no longer do. We felt that exploring these present approaches
sex), may help couples to create more pleasurable sexual expe- to communication made sense; however, it may be useful for
riences together. As Hensel et al. (2011) note, the repetition subsequent research to consider different ways of measuring
of pleasurable sexual experiences may enhance individuals’ this (e.g., perhaps measuring women’s prior approaches to
sexual comfort and help to decrease sexual anxiety. Commu- sexual communication). Finally, our study was cross-sectional
nicating with a partner about sexually intimate information or and correlational and thus no directionality can be established.
sexual preferences can lead to greater sexual satisfaction (Mac- For example, while more comfortable communication can lead
Neil & Byers, 2005) and enhance orgasm likelihood (Kelly to sexual satisfaction it is also the case that women who are
et al., 2004), yet learning to communicate in these ways often sexually satisfied may find it easier to communicate about their
takes time and practice. sexual lives.

Strengths and Limitations
Conclusions
A significant strength of the study is that data are from a U.S.
probability sample of adult women, thus allowing for the gen- In this U.S. probability sample of adult women, we found that
eralizability of findings to the larger non-institutionalized, non- sexual satisfaction was associated with feeling comfortable
homeless U.S. population. Also, the response rate of individuals communicating about sexuality in open, detailed ways. We
who actually clicked on the link to learn about the study topic also found that, although most American women have faked
was high at 88% (the overall response rate of those invited to or pretended orgasm, few continue to do so; greater comfort,
participate was 43.7%). Further, data collection occurred via confidence, and partner acceptance were associated with no
the Internet, which has been shown to facilitate respondents’ longer faking. Findings suggest a potentially important role for
reporting on sensitive topics such as sexuality (Mustanski, sexual partners as well as sexual health professionals to play in
2001). We also sampled women across the adult lifespan, which supporting adult women’s sexual development through foster-
is rare among nationally representative probability samples ing positive, pleasurable, and satisfying sexual conversations
focused on sexuality (e.g., Herbenick, et al., 2009) as many and experiences.
utilize upper age limits in the 1960s or 1970s (e.g., Laumann,
Gagnon, Michael, & Michael, 1994; Mitchell et al., 2013; Rich- Acknowledgements  The authors are grateful to OMGYes.com for fund-
ing in support of the present study.
ters et al., 2014) or are focused on more narrow ages ranges,
such as the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project,
which has provided important data on Americans ages 57–85
Compliance with Ethical Standards 
(Lindau et al., 2007). Conflict of interest  Debby Herbenick has served as a scientific consult-
Our study had several limitations. As with most nationally ant to OMGYes.com.
representative probability surveys, the survey was limited to
those with a physical address and was available in just one
language (in our case, the English language). Our survey was
also retrospective and thus items where we asked respond- References
ents to recall an experience earlier in their lives may have had
their responses influenced by memory or experiences occur- Alexander, S. C., Fortenberry, J. D., Pollak, K. I., Bravender, T., Davis,
ring since that time. A longitudinal design would be better J. K., Ostbye, T., … Shields, C. G. (2014). Sexuality talk during
adolescent health maintenance visits. Journal of American Medical
situated to assess changes over time. Further, as with other

13
Archives of Sexual Behavior (2019) 48:2461–2472 2471

Association Pediatrics, 168, 163–169. https​://doi.org/10.1001/ Haider, A. H., Schneider, E. B., Kodadek, L. M., Adler, R. R., Ranjit,
jamap​ediat​rics.2013.4338. A., Torain, M., … Lau, B. D. (2017). Emergency department
Armstrong, E. A., England, P., & Fogarty, A. C. K. (2012). Accounting query for patient-centered approaches to sexual orientation and
for women’s orgasm and sexual enjoyment in college hookups and gender identity: The EQUALITY study. Journal of the American
relationships. American Sociological Review, 77, 435–462. https​ Medical Association Internal Medicine, 177, 819–828. https​://
://doi.org/10.1177/00031​22412​44580​2. doi.org/10.1001/jamai​ntern​med.2017.0906.
Armstrong, E. A., Hamilton, L., Armstrong, E. M., & Seeley, J. L. Heiman, J. R., Long, J. S., Smith, S. N., Fisher, W. A., Sand, M. S.,
(2014). Good girls: Gender, social class, and slut discourse on & Rosen, R. C. (2011). Sexual satisfaction and relationship hap-
campus. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77, 100–122. https​://doi. piness in midlife and older couples in five countries. Archives
org/10.1177/01902​72514​52122​0. of Sexual Behavior, 40, 741–753. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1050​
Baxter, L. A., & Wilmot, W. W. (1985). Taboo topics in close relation- 8-010-9703-3.
ships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 253–269. Hensel, D., Fortenberry, J. D., O’Sullivan, L. F., & Orr, D. P. (2011).
https​://doi.org/10.1177/02654​07585​02300​2. The developmental association of sexual self-concept with
Braeken, D., & Cardinal, M. (2008). Comprehensive sexuality educa- sexual behavior among adolescent women. Journal of Ado-
tion as a means of promoting sexual health. International Journal lescence, 34, 675–684. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/j.adole​s cenc​
of Sexual Health, 1, 50–62. https​://doi.org/10.1080/19317​61080​ e.2010.09.005.
21570​51. Herbenick, D., Fu, T. C., Arter, J., Dodge, B., & Sanders, S. A.
Braun, V., & Wilkinson, S. (2001). Socio-cultural representations of the (2018). Women’s experiences with genital touching, sexual
vagina. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 19, 17–32. pleasure, and orgasm: Results from a US probability sample.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/02646​83002​00323​74. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 44(2), 201–212. https​: //
Chang, L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2009). National surveys via RDD tel- doi.org/10.1080/00926​23X.2017.13465​30.
ephone interviewing versus the internet: Comparing sample rep- Herbenick, D., Reece, M., Sanders, S. A., Dodge, B., Ghassemi,
resentativeness and response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, A., & Fortenberry, J. D. (2009). Prevalence and characteris-
73, 641–678. https​://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp07​5. tics of vibrator use by women in the United States: Results
Eisenberg, D., Freed, G. L., Davis, M. M., Singer, D., & Prosser, L. A. from a nationally representative probability sample. Jour-
(2011). Valuing health at different ages: Evidence from a nation- nal of Sexual Medicine, 6, 1857–1866. https​://doi.org/10.111
ally representative survey in the US. Applied Health Economics 1/j.1743-6109.2009.01318​.x.
and Health Policy, 9, 149–156. https:​ //doi.org/10.2165/115873​ 40- Herbenick, D., Reece, M., Schick, V., Sanders, S. A., Dodge, B., &
00000​0000-00000​. Fortenberry, J. D. (2010a). An event-level analysis of the sex-
Fahs, B. (2011). Performing sex: The making and unmaking of women’s ual characteristics and composition among adults ages 18 to 59:
erotic lives. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Results from a national probability sample in the United States.
Fahs, B. (2014). Coming to power: Women’s fake orgasms and best Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7, 346–361. https​://doi.org/10.111
orgasm experiences illuminate the failures of (hetero)sex and the 1/j.1743-6109.2010.02020​.x.
pleasures of connection. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 16, 974– Herbenick, D., Reece, M., Schick, V., Sanders, S. A., Dodge, B., &
988. https​://doi.org/10.1080/13691​058.2014.92455​7. Fortenberry, J. D. (2010b). Sexual behavior in the United States:
Fahs, B., & Frank, E. (2014). Notes from the back room: Gender, power, Results from a national probability sample of men and women ages
and (in)visibility in women’s experiences of masturbation. Jour- 14–94. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7, 255–265. https​://doi.org/1
nal of Sex Research, 51, 241–252. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00224​ 0.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02012​.x.
499.2012.74547​4. Herek, G. M. (2009). Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences
Fetterolf, J. C., & Sanchez, D. T. (2015). The costs and benefits of among sexual minority adults in the United States: Prevalence esti-
perceived sexual agency for men and women. Archives of Sex- mates from a national probability sample. Journal of Interpersonal
ual Behavior, 44, 961–970. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1007/s1050​ Violence, 24, 54–74. https​://doi.org/10.1177/08862​60508​31647​7.
8-014-0408-x. Hurlbert, D. F. (1991). The role of assertiveness in female sexuality: A
Fine, M. (1988). Sexuality, schooling, and adolescent females: The comparative study between sexually assertive and sexually nonas-
missing discourse of desire. Harvard Educational Review, 58, sertive women. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 17, 183–190.
29–54. https​://doi.org/10.17763​/haer.58.1.u0468​k1v2n​2n824​2. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00926​23910​84043​42.
Fortenberry, J. D., Schick, V., Herbenick, D., Sanders, S. A., Dodge, Kelly, M. P., Strassberg, D. S., & Turner, C. M. (2004). Communi-
B., & Reece, M. (2010). Sexual behaviors and condom use at cation and associated relationship issues in female anorgasmia.
last vaginal intercourse: A national sample of adolescents ages Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 30, 263–276. https​://doi.
14 to 17 years. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7, 305–314. https​:// org/10.1080/00926​23049​04224​03.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02018​.x. Kiefer, A. K., & Sanchez, D. T. (2007). Scripting sexual passivity:
Frischherz, M. (2015). Affective agency and transformative shame: A gender role perspective. Personal Relationships, 14, 269–290.
The voices behind The Great Wall of Vagina. Women’s Studies https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00154​.x.
in Communication, 38, 251–272. https​://doi.org/10.1080/07491​ Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., Martin, C., & Gebhard, P. (1953). Sexual
409.2015.10610​84. behavior in the human female. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders.
Gagnon, J. H. (1990). The explicit and implicit use of the scripting Kontula, O. (2010). The evolution of sex education and students’ sexual
perspective in sex research. Annual Review of Sex Research, 1, knowledge in Finland in the 2000s. Sex Education, 10, 373–386.
1–43. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10532​528.1990.10559​854. https​://doi.org/10.1080/14681​811.2010.51509​5.
Goldberg, S. K., Haydon, A. A., Herring, A. H., & Halpern, C. T. Laan, E., & Rellini, A. H. (2011). Can we treat anorgasmia in women?
(2014). Longitudinal consistency in self-reported age of first The challenge to experiencing pleasure. Sexual and Relation-
intercourse among young adults. Journal of Sex Research, 51, ship Therapy, 26, 329–341. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1080/14681​
97–106. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00224​499.2012.71916​9. 994.2011.64969​1.
Haavio-Mannila, E., & Kontula, O. (1997). Correlates of increased Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michael, S. (1994).
sexual satisfaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 399–419. The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United
https​://doi.org/10.1023/A:10245​91318​836. States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

13

2472 Archives of Sexual Behavior (2019) 48:2461–2472

Levine, E. C., Herbenick, D., Martinez, O., Fu, T. C., & Dodge, B. Rickert, V. I., Sanghvi, R., & Wiemann, C. M. (2002). Is lack of sexual
(2018). Open relationships, nonconsensual nonmonogamy, and assertiveness among adolescent and young adult women a cause
monogamy among US adults: Findings from the 2012 National for concern? Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health,
Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. Archives of Sexual Behav- 34(4), 178–183.
ior, 47, 1439–1450. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1050​8-018-1178-7. Rosen, R., Brown, C., Heiman, J. R., Leiblum, C., Meston, C., Shab-
Lindau, S. T., Schumm, L. P., Laumann, E. O., Levinson, W., sigh, R., … D’Agostino, R. (2000). The Female Sexual Function
O’Muircheartaigh, C. A., & Waite, L. J. (2007). A study of sexu- Index (FSFI): A multi-dimensional self-report instrument for the
ality and health among older adults in the United States. New Eng- assessment of female sexual function. Journal of Sex and Marital
land Journal of Medicine, 357, 762–774. https​://doi.org/10.1056/ Therapy, 2, 191–208. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00926​23002​78597​.
NEJMo​a0674​23. Rothman, E. F., Edwards, E. M., Heeran, T., & Hingson, R. W. (2008).
Maas, M. K., Shearer, C. L., Gillen, M. M., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2015). Adverse childhood experiences predict earlier age of drinking
Sex rules: Emerging adults’ perceptions of gender’s impact on sex- onset: Results from a US representative sample of current or for-
uality. Sexuality and Culture, 19, 617–636. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/ mer drinkers. Pediatrics, 122, e298–e304. https:​ //doi.org/10.1542/
s1211​9-015-9281-6. peds.2007-3412.
MacNeil, S., & Byers, E. S. (2005). Dyadic assessment of sexual self- Solomon, D. H., Knobloch, L. K., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2004). Rela-
disclosure and sexual satisfaction in heterosexual dating couples. tional power, marital schema, and decisions to withhold com-
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 169–181. https​ plaints: An investigation of the chilling effect on confrontation in
://doi.org/10.1177/02654​07505​05094​2. marriage. Communication Studies, 55(1), 146–167.
Mark, K., Herbenick, D., Fortenberry, J. D., Sanders, S. A., & Reece, M. StataCorp. (2015). Stata statistical software: Release 14. College Sta-
(2014). A psychometric comparison of three scales and a single- tion, TX: StataCorp LP.
item measure to assess sexual satisfaction. Journal of Sex Research, Thomas, H. N., Hess, R., & Thurston, R. C. (2015). Correlates of sexual
51, 159–169. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00224​499.2013.81626​1. activity and satisfaction in midlife and older women. Annals of
Martinez, G., Copen, C. E., & Abma, J. C. (2011). Teenagers in the Family Medicine, 13, 336–342. https​://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1820.
United States: Sexual activity, contraceptive use, and childbearing, Tiefer, L. (2002). Pleasure, medicalization and the tyranny of the natu-
2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth (Vital and Health ral. SIECUS Report, 30, 23–26.
Statistics No. 23). Retrieved from the Centers for Disease Con- Tolman, D. (1994). Doing desire: Adolescent girls’ struggles for/
trol and Prevention. https​://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/serie​s/sr_23/ with sexuality. Gender and Society, 8, 324–342. https ​ : //doi.
sr23_031.pdf. org/10.1177/08912​43940​08003​003.
Mitchell, K. R., Mercer, C. H., Ploubidis, G. B., Jones, K. G., Datta, J., Watson, E. D., Seguin, L. J., Milhausen, R. R., & Murray, S. H. (2016).
Field, N., … Wellings, K. (2013). Sexual function in Britain: Find- The impact of a couple’s vibrator on men’s perceptions of their
ings from the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Life- own and their partner’s sexual pleasure and satisfaction. Men and
styles (Natsal-3). Lancet, 382, 1817–1829. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/ Masculinities, 19, 370–383. https​://doi.org/10.1177/10971​84X15​
S0140​-6736(13)62366​-1. 59508​2.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Shippee, S. K. (2010). Men’s and women’s Wiederman, M. W. (1997). Pretending orgasm during sexual intercourse:
reports of pretending orgasm. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 552– Correlates in a sample of young adult women. Journal of Sex and
567. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00224​49090​31717​94. Marital Therapy, 23, 131–139. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00926​
Mustanski, B. S. (2001). Getting wired: Exploiting the internet for the 23970​84053​14.
collection of valid sexuality data. Journal of Sex Research, 38, World Health Organization. (2010). Sexual and reproductive health.
292–301. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00224​49010​95521​00. Defining sexual health. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/repro​
Pronier, C., & Monk-Turner, E. (2014). Factors shaping women’s sexual ducti​vehea​lth/topic​s/sexua​l_healt​h/sh_defin​ition​s/en/.
satisfaction: A comparison of medical and social models. Jour- Yeager, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., Chang, L., Javitz, H. S., Levendusky, M.
nal of Gender Studies, 23, 69–80. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09589​ S., Simpser, A., & Wang, R. (2011). Comparing the accuracy of
236.2012.75234​7. RDD telephone surveys and internet surveys conducted with prob-
Richters, J., Altman, D., Badcock, P. B., Smith, A. M. A., de Visser, R. ability and non-probability samples. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75,
O., Grulich, A. E., … Simpson, J. D. (2014). Sexual identity, sexual 709–747. https​://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr02​0.
attraction and sexual experience: The second Australian Study of
Health and Relationships. Sexual Health, 11, 451–460. https​://doi. Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
org/10.1071/SH141​17. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Richters, J., Grulich, A. E., de Visser, R. O., & Smith, A. M. A. (2003).
Sex in Australia: Sexual and emotional satisfaction in regular rela-
tionships and preferred frequency of sex among a representative
sample of adults. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public
Health, 27, 171–179. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842X.2003.
tb008​05.x.

13