Abstract
Analysis of a Finnish nationally representative student sample found that subjective reactions to first intercourse (mostly heterosexual; usually in adolescence) were highly positive for boys and mostly positive for girls, whether involved with peers or adults (Rind, 2022). The present study examined the generality of these findings by examining subjective reactions to first coitus (heterosexual intercourse) in a German nationally representative sample of young people (data collected in 2014). Most first coitus was postpubertal. Males reacted mostly positively and uncommonly negatively in similar fashion in all age pairings: boy–girl (71% positive, 13% negative); boy–woman (73% positive; 17% negative); man–woman (73% positive, 15% negative). Females’ reactions were more mixed, similar in the girl–boy (48% positive; 37% negative) and woman–man (46% positive, 36% negative) groups, but less favorable in the girl–man group (32% positive, 47% negative). In logistic regressions, adjusting for other factors, rates of positive reactions were unrelated to age groups. These rates did increase, in order of importance, when participants were male, their partners were close, they expected the coitus to happen, and they affirmatively wanted it. Reaction rates were computed from the Finnish sample, restricting cases to first coitus occurring in the 2000s, and then compared to minors’ reactions in the German sample. The Finns reacted more favorably, similarly in both minor–peer and minor–adult coitus, with twice the odds of reacting positively. It was argued that this discrepancy was due to cultural differences (e.g., Finnish culture is more sex-positive). To account for the reaction patterns shown in the adolescent–adult coitus, sizably at odds with expectations from mainstream professional thinking, an evolutionary framework was employed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
These studies finding benefits concerned unwanted sex, and the benefits included self-perceived effects such as feeling stronger or wiser, or being more protective of others. Benefits were positive spins on negative events, not positive views of the events. These reports are consistent with the mainstream perspective view that all events labeled CSA are inherently abusive and likely to be harmful, even if some good may come out of them.
Note that the benefits reported in the Cleverley and Boyle (2010) and McMillen et al. (1995) studies discussed above concerned “self-reported effects” (i.e., how the respondent thinks the experience affected him or her later on in terms of being less or more adapted), rather than “subjective reactions,” which concerns whether a respondent felt or feels negatively, neutrally, or positively about the experience itself at the time it occurred or in retrospect.
“Intercourse” is used here instead of coitus, because some of the events were same-sex. Significant differences occurred in the girl–peer, girl–adult, and boy–peer groups. The difference was similar in the boy–adult group but not significantly.
In the quota method, a specific sample size is specified for each subgroup to be surveyed, and then potential respondents are solicited until the quotas are filled. Here, actual and target numbers matched with high accuracy.
Because the reaction question was central to the present study, for clarity its original German is provided here. First, the original German for the introduction instruction to participants was: Bitte erinnern Sie sich jetzt noch einmal daran, wie es war, als Sie zum ersten Mal Geschlechtsverkehr mit einem Jungen oder Mann [if female participant]/mit einem Mädchen/einer Frau [if male participant] hatten. Note that “wie es war” (how it was) indicates reactions at the time.
The original German for the reaction question was: Wie haben Sie Ihren ersten Geschlechtsverkehr erlebt? Mehrere Angaben sind möglich!
The original German for the response options was: es war für mich eigentlich nichts Besonderes; es war für mich etwas Schönes; ich hatte ein schlechtes Gewissen dabei; es war für mich etwas Unangenehmes.
Rind (2022) showed that this coding was justified as follows. First, in correlation analyses, the negative emotions were highly correlated, so were combined to a single variable. Then an ANOVA was performed, with negative, surprise, interest, and pleasure forming levels of the independent variable, and reactions in retrospect (1 = very negative; 5 = very positive) serving as the dependent variable. The ANOVA was significant, with negative (M = 2.04) corresponding to negative, surprise (M = 3,28) to neutral, and interest (M = 4.14) and pleasure (M = 4.38) equally to positive on the 5-point scale.
Timing was not included as a predictor because it was assumed to be conceptually close to, and likely confounded with, reaction responses—both were evaluative in nature, rather than strictly factual.
References
Anderson, C. M., & Bielert, C. (1990). Adolescent/adult copulatory behavior in nonhuman primates. In J. R. Feierman (Ed.), Pedophilia: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 176–200). Springer-Verlag.
Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242–273.
Boydell, V., Wright, K. Q., & Smith, R. D. (2021). A rapid review of sexual pleasure in first sexual experience(s). Journal of Sex Research, 58, 850–862.
Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. Free Press.
Clancy, S. (2009). The trauma myth: The truth about the sexual abuse of children—and its aftermath. Basic Books.
Cleverley, K., & Boyle, M. H. (2010). The individual as a moderating agent of the long-term impact of sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 274–290.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
Dixson, A. F. (2012). Primate sexuality: Comparative studies of the prosimians, monkeys, apes, and humans (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. Routledge.
Ellis, B. J., & Symons, D. (1990). Sex differences in sexual fantasy: An evolutionary psychological approach. Journal of Sex Research, 27, 527–555.
Felson, R. B., Savorlainen, J., Fry, S., Whichard, C., & Ellonen, N. (2019). Reactions of boys and girls to sexual abuse and to sexual encounters with peers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48, 1869–1882.
Finkelhor, D. (1979). Sexually victimized children. The Free Press.
Ford, C. S., & Beach, F. A. (1951). Patterns of sexual behavior. Harper & Row.
Frankenbach, J., Weber, M., Loschelder, D. D., Kilger, H., & Friese, M. (2022). Sex drive: Theoretical conceptualization and meta-analytic review of gender differences. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000366
Frayser, S. (1985). Varieties of sexual experience. HRAF.
Gebhard, P. H., Gagnon, J. H., Pomeroy, W. B., & Christenson, C. V. (1965). Sex offenders: An analysis of types. Harper & Row.
Gray, K., Schein, C., & Ward, A. F. (2014). The myth of harmless wrongs in moral cognition: Automatic dyadic completion from sin to suffering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1600–1615.
Gunst, N., Leca, J., & Vasey, P. L. (2013). Development of sexual and socio-sexual behaviours in free-ranging juvenile male Japanese macaques, Macaca fuscata. Behaviour, 150, 1225–1254.
Harden, K. P., Mendle, J., Hill, J. E., Turkheimer, E., & Emery, R. E. (2008). Rethinking timing of first sex and delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 373–385.
Hashimoto, C. (1997). Content and development of sexual behavior of wild bonobos (Pan paniscus) at Wamba, Zaire. International Journal of Primatology, 18, 1–21.
Hawes, Z. C., Wellings, K., & Stephenson, J. (2010). First heterosexual intercourse in the United Kingdom: A review of the literature. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 137–152.
Hessling, A., & Bode, H. (2015). Youth sexuality 2015. The outlook of 14–25-year-olds. A report of the findings. Results of the current representative survey. Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung, Köln.
Hines, D., & A., & Finkelhor, D. (2007). Statutory sex crime relationships between juveniles and adults: A review of social scientific research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 300–314.
Jenkins, P. (1998). Moral panic: Changing concepts of the child-molester in modem America. Yale University Press.
Kano, T. (1980). Social behavior of wild pygmy chimpanzees (Pan paniscus) of Wamba: A preliminary report. Journal of Human Evolution, 9, 243–260.
Knoth, R., Boyd, K., & Singer, B. (1988). Empirical tests of sexual selection theory: Predictions of sex differences in onset, intensity, and time course of sexual arousal. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 73–89.
Kollar, E. L., Beckwith, W. C., & Edgerton, R. B. (1968). Sexual behavior of the ARL colony chimpanzees. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 147, 444–459.
Kontula, O. (2015). Sex life challenges: The Finnish case. International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 665–671). Elsevier.
Lancaster, R. N. (2011). Sex panic and the punitive state. University of California Press.
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. University of Chicago Press.
Mathews, R., Matthews, J., & Speltz, K. (1990). Female sexual offenders: An exploratory study. The Safer Society Press.
McMillen, C., Zuravin, S., & Rideout, G. (1995). Perceived benefit from child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 1037–1043.
Metha, C. R., & Patel, N. R. (2011). IBM SPSS exact tests. IBM Corporation.
Muller, M. N., Thompson, M. E., & Wrangham, R. W. (2006). Male chimpanzees prefer mating with old females. Current Biology, 16, 2234–2238.
Okami, P., & Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Human sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12, 186–241.
Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., Patihis, L., Merckelback, H., Lynn, S. J., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Loftus, E. F. (2019). The return of the repressed: The persistent and problematic claims of long-forgotten trauma. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 1072–1095.
Rind, B. (2017). Hebephilia and other chronophilic puzzles [Commentary]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 47–51.
Rind, B. (2021). First sexual intercourse in the Irish study of sexual health and relationships: Current functioning in relation to age at time of experience and partner age. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50, 289–310.
Rind, B. (2022). Reactions to minor-older and minor-peer sex as a function of personal and situational variables in a Finnish nationally representative student sample. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51, 961–985.
Rind, B., & Welter, M. (2014). Enjoyment and emotionally negative reactions in minor-adult versus minor-peer and adult-adult first postpubescent coitus: A secondary analysis of the Kinsey data. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 285–297.
Rind, B., & Welter, M. (2016). Reactions to first postpubertal male same-sex sexual experience in the Kinsey sample: A comparison of minors with peers, minors with adults, and adults with adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 1771–1786.
Rind, B., & Yuill, R. (2012). Hebephilia as mental disorder? A historical, cross-cultural, sociological, cross-species, non-clinical empirical, and evolutionary review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 797–829.
Rind, B., Tromovitch, P., & Bauserman, R. (1998). A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 22–53.
Rind, B., Tromovitch, P., & Bauserman, R. (2001). The validity and appropriateness of methods, analyses, and conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A rebuttal of victimological critique from Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001). Psychological Bulletin, 127, 734–758.
Salgado, J. F. (2018). Transforming the area under the normal curve (AUC) into Cohen’s d, Pearson’s rpb, odds-ratio, and natural log odds-ratio: Two conversion tables. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 10, 35–47.
Scharmanski, S., & Hessling, A. (2022). Sexuality education for young people in Germany. Results of the ‘Youth Sexuality’ representative repeat survey. Journal of Health Monitoring, 7, 21–38.
Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–311.
Stoltzfus, J. C. (2011). Logistic regression: A brief primer. Academic Emergency Medicine, 18, 1099–1104.
Sugiyama, L. S. (2016). Physical attractiveness: An adaptationist perspective. In D. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (2nd ed., pp. 317–384). Wiley.
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford University Press.
Whiting, J. W. M., Burbank, V. K., & Ratner, M. S. (2009). The duration of maidenhood across cultures. In E. H. Chasdi (Ed.), Culture and human development: The selected papers of John Whiting (pp. 282–305). Cambridge University Press.
Funding
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.
Informed consent
The research is secondary research on the German Youth Sexuality 2015 survey, so informed consent here was not at issue.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Rind, B. Subjective Reactions to First Coitus in Relation to Participant Sex, Partner Age, and Context in a German Nationally Representative Sample of Adolescents and Young Adults. Arch Sex Behav 52, 2229–2247 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02631-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02631-5