“You are fortunate enough to be able to spend your entire winter vacation in Los Angeles. [...] As you are sipping your drink, you look over and notice that actor Johnny Depp is just a few tables away. [...] Still more amazing, he catches your eye and then approaches you. He says, ‘I have been noticing you and I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?’”

This scenario was proposed to a sample of heterosexual women by University of Michigan researcher Terri Conley, testing the hypothesis (among others) that:

“[W]hen women are presented with proposers who are equivalent in terms of safety and sexual prowess, they will be equally likely as men to engage in casual sex.”

You may be wondering why these tests were conducted and what Johnny Depp has to do with it. In the late 1980s, sexual researchers Clark and Hatfield published a paper “Gender Differences in Receptivity to Sexual Offers.” Part of their research consisted of measuring the responses of men and womyn to random sexual proposals. Every womyn approached by a man, a stranger to them, declined the sexual proposal, whereas 75% of the men sampled accepted the proposal from the stranger-womyn. This has serious implications – applications of this research largely support our cultural predisposition to the idea that all men are heterosexual sex-craving machines (see also: beer commercials and this weird study of men staring at boobs).

Conley conducted her experiments differently, testing for explanations of why people would decline random sexual proposals. She found that “[m]ale proposers were perceived (by women) as more dangerous and less likely to provide them sexual satisfaction than women were perceived (by men).” In attempts to remove these confounding factors, she used the foregoing antiquated Johnny Depp dream, thinking that gender differences would shift when men and womyn were presented with attractive celebrities as the ones proposing casual sex (Angelina Jolie for heterosexual men) in that there is a perceived element of sexual satisfaction and safety in these celebrity-sex encounters. This time, she found little statistical difference between men’s and women’s acceptance rates.

Conley’s research has a lot of significance; we need to rethink our assumptions about human sexuality and what the subtext of gender differences in sexual responses and preferences mean. I think that Catharine Mackinnon’s (an incredible feminist scholar) argument that “sexual difference is a function of sexual dominance” critically meets Conley’s research. Our understanding of female sexuality is derived from the dominant male projections of sexuality; i.e., whatever womyn do (are forced to do, are expected to do) to “produce” a male erection is culturally understood as normal female sexuality. This supplements Conley’s finding that womyn don’t typically expect these casual sexual encounters to be pleasurable (accounting for sexual difference) because they aren’t; men are twice as likely to orgasm in heterosexual hook-ups.

Moreover, the confounding variable of “safety” Conley discovers points to Mackinnon’s theory of how the sexualization of gender inequality (evident in a lot of pornography) is a maintaining factor of male dominance, propagating a rape culture that is normalized into our gendered interactions and read as sexual.

There isn’t an easy solution to these issues. What I suggest: read more of Mackinnon’s work, check out further analysis of Conley’s research, watch more Johnny Depp movies, and celebrate International Womyn’s Day!

(Thanks to Aaron for a lot of these links.)

(Photo by sxc.hu)

3 Comments

• Lexie Tourek says:

  March 9, 2011 at 11:19 pm

  Thanks Matt,

  I think the genetics argument is interesting, but I agree with Rebecca that there are more social reasons to prefer Johnny Depp as a casual partner over a stranger. I see concerns of safety and perceived lack of pleasure as the foremost barriers to stranger sex for most heterosexual womyn. Honestly, even if the ramifications of heterosexual patriarchy were lessened – sexual norms shifted and violence against womyn decreased – I still don’t think genetics would have that big of a role in explaining gender differences in casual sex selection. A lot of sociologists in this field are shifting from the genetic explanation to the pleasure-based theory, and I think the arguments Rebecca makes about sex with Johnny Depp are explicative of why.

  Also, Conley’s study had a lot of other interesting components. She tested same-sex casual sex pairings in a sample of people whose sexuality was not recorded. Womyn were more likely to assent to causal sex with other womyn compared to men with men. I don’t know exactly how this fits into the discussion, but I think it throws a wrench into the genetic-based theory.

  Reply
• Rebecca Wilson says:

  March 9, 2011 at 7:30 pm

  Its interesting that you mention genetics – I would argue it doesnt apply here.

  Genetics would apply if actual baby-making was occuring…but I think most women would assume that they were only going to have sex with Johnny Depp, and not bear his children.

  Personally, I would say no to a random stranger because I would have no idea what the outcome would be. But if I were to have sex with Johnny Depp, I could be fairly certain that it would be good (worth it), that he is clean since he has more than sufficient money to get tested for STDs, and it would make a great story (vs. you would get little respect from friends for telling them you had sex with a random stranger). There would be almost no fear that he would kidnap you or steal money from you or try to force you into something more – because he already has money and power, he doesnt need it from me. And he can get sex whenever he wants. He’s fuckin Johnny Depp.

  Considering genetics reads too far into it, especially in today’s world where casual hookups are so much more common.

  Reply
• Matt Friedrichs says:

  March 9, 2011 at 1:58 pm

  Lexie, a fascinating post and study. I think you made a great connection between Conley’s study and Mackinnon’s argument. Do you think the explanation is entirely cultural, or may there perhaps be another, more intrinsic aspect?

  Yes, women may feel like a random sexual encounter may be dangerous and less satisfying, but do they also feel that the average man (a man “equivalent in safety and sexual prowess”) is not good enough for them genetically. Perhaps this study also shows that women are more prone to a have a random sexual encounter because they believe Johnny Depp’s status in society means he will generate genetically better and more protected off spring.

  Of course, this begs the question are men naturally less selective then women in genetic attributes? How would a study separate the two?

  Reply