Few Differences in Sexual Talk by Gender/Sex and Dyad Type: A Retrospective and Daily Diary Study with Couples

• Published in: Archives of sexual behavior 2022-11, Vol.51 (8), p.3715-3733
• Main Authors: Merwin, Kathleen E., Bergeron, Sophie, Jodouin, Jean-Francois, Mackinnon, Sean P., Rosen, Natalie O.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Behavioral Science and Psychology; Communication; Couples; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Gender; Gender differences; Gender Identity; Humans; Language; Male; Original Paper; Psychology; Public Health; Retrospective Studies; Sexes; Sexual Behavior; Sexual Partners; Social Sciences; Well being
• ISSN: 0004-0002; 1573-2800
• DOI: 10.1007/s10508-022-02363-y

Sexual talk is a type of verbal communication that occurs exclusively during sexual activity and that is specific to the sexual activity itself. Previous research has identified two types of sexual talk: individualistic (i.e., self-focused) and mutualistic (i.e., sharing/partner-focused), which have generally been linked to greater sexual and relationship well-being. Whether sexual talk use varies by gender/sex (i.e., men, women, gender/sex diverse individuals; GSD) or dyad type (i.e., same- vs. mixed-gender/sex) has not been examined. Given initial evidence that the types of sexual talk may contribute differently to sexual and relationship well-being, it is important to identify factors (e.g., gender/sex) that may be associated with the amount of sexual talk used. We examined differences by gender/sex and dyad type in the average sexual talk use among long-term couples ( N  = 229; 69 same-gender/sex) using retrospective cross-sectional dyadic data. We also examined these differences in the same sample ( N  = 217) using a 35-day dyadic daily diary study. Retrospectively, but not daily, women reported using more mutualistic talk than men, especially when partnered with a woman. There were no significant gender/sex or dyad type differences in use of individualistic talk retrospectively or daily. Exploratory analyses with the GSD couples suggested that there may be gender/sex and dyad type differences retrospectively and daily, for individualistic and not mutualistic talk; however, these analyses must be interpreted with caution due to the small subsample size of GSD couples.