Acculturation and Sexuality: Investigating Gender Differences in Erotic Plasticity (Report‪)‬

The theory that women are more erotically plastic than men is supported by a significant body of data from which it has been inferred that female sexuality is more flexible and more heavily influenced by contextual factors. In his review of selected relevant literature, Baumeister (2000) argued that in order for the theory of female erotic plasticity to hold, three predictions would have to be empirically supported. These predictions were that, in comparison to men, women would evidence the following: (1) greater intraindividual variation in sexual attitudes and behavior, (2) lower sexual attitude-sexual behavior consistency, and (3) a greater susceptibility to the influence of sociocultural factors on their sexual attitudes and behavior. Sampling from a diverse body of literature, some recent publications and some over 50 years old, Baumeister argued that there was sufficient support for all three hypotheses. Having confirmed the supposed gender difference in the extant literature, Baumeister then turned his attention to explanatory mechanisms. He argued that the most convincing explanation for this gender difference in sexuality was that women are inherently more plastic as a function of a less hearty sex drive in comparison to men (Baumeister, 2000, 2004; Baumeister, Catanese, & Vohs, 2001). By virtue of supposedly being less motivated to seek sexual satisfaction, women are more likely to tolerate alternatives and to mold their sexual behavior to the attainment of goals that mean more to them (e.g., relationship harmony, emotional connectedness). The theory of female erotic plasticity has its detractors, both in terms of the studies invoked in its support and in terms of its interpretation of gender differences (Andersen, Cyranowski, & Aarestad, 2000; Shibley-Hyde & Durik, 2000). The contention that female erotic plasticity has its roots in a weaker sexual drive has been particularly singled out as a simplistic interpretation of what might in fact be a difference in the periodic nature of male and female sex drives, as well as a failure to distinguish between sexual desire and sexual arousal (Tolman & Diamond, 2001). In addition, a previous meta-analysis had found only small to moderate gender differences on a number of sexual variables that could be interpreted to indicate sexual drive (Oliver & Hyde, 1993). Explanatory mechanisms for female erotic plasticity aside, the theory itself provides a compelling exposition of certain gender differences in sexuality that only direct investigation can evaluate. Unquestionably, the evidence Baumeister drew on varied greatly in terms of its quality and quantity, and little of it could be described as directly testing gender differences in erotic plasticity.