Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is It Good to Be Giving in the Bedroom? A Prosocial Perspective on Sexual Health and Well-Being in Romantic Relationships

  • Female Sexual Dysfunction and Disorders (L Brotto and A Bradford, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Sexual Health Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Satisfying sexual interactions are a crucial predictor of the quality of romantic relationships and satisfaction with life. At the same time that sex can lift couples up and bring them great pleasure, navigating the sexual aspects of their relationship can be quite challenging for some couples, as conflicts of interest such as desired sexual frequency are among the most difficult types of relationship conflict to resolve. A prosocial perspective on sexuality suggests that partners who are highly motivated to respond to each other’s needs and provide each other with sexual benefits can maintain desire, even over the long term, as well as navigate sexual problems in their relationship with greater success. This article addresses two central questions, including why people are motivated to provide their romantic partner with sexual benefits and the relationship and sexual outcomes of doing so, as well as who is most likely to be giving in the bedroom. This perspective on sexuality has important clinical applications, including unique extensions to individuals with sexual dysfunctions, as well as the psychological and sexual well-being of affected couples.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Coontz S. Marriage, a history: how love conquered marriage. New York: Penguin; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wouters C. Balancing sex and love since the 1960s sexual revolution. Theory Cult Soc. 1998;15:187–274. doi:10.1177/0263276498015003009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pazmany E, Bergeron S, Verhaeghe J, Van Oudenhove L, Enzlin P. Sexual communication, dyadic adjustment, and psychosexual well-being in premenopausal women with self-reported dyspareunia and their partners: a controlled study. J Sex Med. 2014. doi:10.1111/jsm.12518.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kelly MP, Strassberg DS, Turner CM. Behavioral assessment of couples’ communication in female orgasmic disorder. J Sex Mar Therapy. 2006;32:81–95. doi:10.1080/00926230500442243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Diamond L. Emerging perspectives on distinctions between romantic love and sexual desire. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2004;13:116–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gonzaga GC, Turner RA, Keltner D, Campos B, Altemus M. Romantic love and sexual desire in close relationships. Emotion. 2006;6:163–79. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.6.2.163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E. Passion, intimacy, and time: passionate love as a function of change in intimacy. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 1999;3:49–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Impett EA, Muise A, Peragine D. Sexuality in the context of relationships. In: Tolman DL, Diamond LM, Bauermeister JA, George WH, Pfaus JG, Ward LM, editors. APA handbook of sexuality and psychology, (vol. 1). Washington: American Psychological Association; 2014. p. 269–315.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Perel E. Mating in captivity: unlocking erotic intelligence. New York: Harper Collins; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Simms KE, Meana M. Why did passion wane? A qualitative study of married women’s attributes for declines in desire. J Sex Marital Ther. 2010;36:360–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Davies S, Katz J, Jackson JL. Sexual desire discrepancies: effects on sexual and relationship satisfaction in heterosexual dating couples. Arch Sex Behav. 1999;28:553–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hurlbert DF, Apt C, Hurlbert MK, Pierce AP. Sexual compatibility and the sexual desire-motivation in females with hypoactive sexual desire disorder. Behav Modif. 2000;24:325–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Impett EA, Peplau LA. Sexual compliance: gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. J Sex Res. 2003;40:87–100. This article provides a systematic review of the research on sexual compliance, including gender, relationship, and motivational perspectives.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mark KP. The relative impact of individual sexual desire and couple desire discrepancy on satisfaction in heterosexual couples. Sex Relat Therapy. 2012;27:133–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mark KP, Murray SH. Gender differences in desire discrepancy as a predictor of sexual and relationship satisfaction in a college sample of heterosexual romantic relationships. J Sex Marital Ther. 2012;38:198–215.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Blumstein P, Schwartz P. American couples: money, work, sex. New York: Morrow; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  17. O’Sullivan LF, Byers ES. Gender differences in responses to discrepancies in desired level of sexual intimacy. J Psychol Hum Sex. 1996;8:49–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Risch GS, Riley LA, Lawler MG. Problematic issues in the early years of marriage: content for premarital education. J Psychol Theol. 2003;31:253–69.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Matthews AK, Tartaro J, Hughes TL. A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual women in committed relationships. J Lesbian Stud. 2003;7:104–14. doi:10.1300/J155v07n01_07.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Day L, Muise A, Joel S, Impett EA To do it or not to do it? How communally motivated people navigate sexual interdependence dilemmas. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2015;41:791–804. Advance online publication. This empirical paper provides the first empirical evidence that people who are high in sexual communal strength (i.e., those who are motivated to meet their partner’s sexual needs) navigate desire-discrepant situations in their romantic relationships with greater success.

  21. Call V, Sprecher S, Schwartz P. The incidence and frequency of marital sex in a national sample. J Marriage Fam. 1995;57:639–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Regan PC. The role of sexual desire and sexual activity in dating relationships. Soc Behav Person. 2000;28:51–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sprecher S. Sexual satisfaction in premarital relationships: associations with satisfaction, love, commitment, and stability. J Sex Res. 2002;39:190–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yabiku ST, Gager CT. Sexual frequency and the stability of marital and cohabiting unions. J Marriage Fam. 2009;71:983–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rosen R. Prevalence and risk factors of sexual dysfunction in men and women. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2000;2:189–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sanford K. Problem-solving conversations in marriage: does it matter what topics couples discuss. Pers Relat. 2003;10:97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Brotto LA, Luria M. Sexual interest/arousal disorder in women. In: Binik YM, Hall K, editors. Principles and practice of sex therapy. 5th ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Brotto LA. The DSM diagnositc criteria for hypoactive sexual desire disorder in men. J Sex Med. 2010;7:2015–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Brotto LA, Bitzer J, Laan E, Leiblum SR, Luria M. Women’s sexual desire and arousal disorders. J Sex Med. 2010;7:586–614.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hayes RD, Bennett CM, Fairley CK, Dennerstein L. What can prevalence studies tell us about female sexual difficulty and dysfunction? J Sex Med. 2006;3:589–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Impett EA, Muise A, Breines J. From risk to pleasure: toward a positive psychology of sexuality. In: Hojjat M, Cramer D, editors. Positive psychology of love. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 57–76.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Muise A, Kim JJ, McNulty JK, Impett EA. The positive implications of sex for relationships. In: Knee C, Reis H, editors. Advances in personal relationships, vol. 1: positive approaches to optimal relationship development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Brezsnyak M, Whisman MA. Sexual desire and relationship functioning: the effects of marital satisfaction and power. J Sex Marital Therapy. 2004;30:199–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Byers ES. Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: a longitudinal study of individuals in long-term relationships. J Sex Res. 2005;42:113–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. McNulty JK, Wenner CA, Fisher TD. Longitudinal associations among marital satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and frequency of sex in early marriage. Arch Sex Behav. 2015; Advanced online publication.

  36. Yeh HC, Lorenz FO, Wickrama KAS, Conger RD, Elder Jr GH. Relationships among sexual satisfaction, marital quality, and marital instability at midlife. J Fam Psychol. 2006;20:339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Laumann EO, Paik A, Glasser DB, Kang JH, Wang T, Levinson B, et al. A cross-national study of subjective sexual well-being among older women and men: findings from the global study of sexual attitudes and behaviors. Arch Sex Behav. 2006;35:143–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Edwards JN, Booth A. Sexuality, marriage, and well-being: the middle years. In: Rossi AS, editor. Sexuality across the life course. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1994. p. 233–59.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Acevedo BP, Aron A. Does a long-term relationship kill romantic love? Rev Gen Psychol. 2009;13:59–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lavner JA, Bradbury TN. Patterns of change in marital satisfaction over the newlywed years. J Marriage Fam. 2010;72:1171–87.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Apt C, Hurlbert DF, Pierce AP, White LC. Relationship satisfaction, sexual characteristics, and the psychosexual well-being of women. Can J Hum Sex. 1996;5:195–210.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Bridges SK, Horne SG. Sexual satisfaction and desire discrepancy in same-sex women’s relationships. J Sex Marital Therapy. 2007;33:41–53. doi:10.1080/00926230600998466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ferenidou F, Kapoteli V, Moisidis K, Koutsogiannis I, Giakoumelos A, Hatzichristou D. Presence of a sexual problem may not affect women’s satisfaction from their sexual function. J Sex Med. 2008;5:631–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Smith KB, Pukall CF. A systematic review of relationship adjustment and sexual satisfaction among women with provoked vestibulodynia. J Sex Res. 2011;2011:166–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Muise A, Impett EA, Kogan A, Desmarais S. Keeping the spark alive: being motivated to meet a partner’s sexual needs sustains sexual desire in long-term romantic relationships. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2013;4:267–73. This empirical paper examines the influence of approach and avoidance goals on sexual well-being. Results indicate that approach sexual goals were associated with increased daily relationship and sexual satisfaction for both actors and partners, whereas avoidance goals were associated with decreased satisfaction for actors and partners.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Muise A, Impett EA. Good, giving and game: the relationship benefits of communal sexual responsiveness. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2015;6:164–72. doi:10.1177/1948550614553641. This empirical article demonstrates that people who are motivated to meet their partner’s sexual needs (i.e., those are who high in sexual communal strength) have partners who detect this responsiveness and are more satisfied with and committed to their relationship as a result.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kelley HH. The processes of causal attribution. Am Psychol. 1973;28:107–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kelley HH, Thibaut JW. Interpersonal relations: a theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Thibaut JW, Kelley HH. The social psychology of groups. Oxford: Wiley; 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rusbult CE, Van Lange PA. Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54:351–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Rusbult CE, Van Lange PA. Why we need interdependence theory. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2008;2:2049–70. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00147.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Van Lange PA, Rusbult CE, Drigotas SM, Arriaga XB, Witcher BS, Cox CL. Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997;72:1373–95. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Wieselquist J, Rusbult CE, Foster CA, Agnew CR. Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999;77:942–66. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.942.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Katz J, Tirone V. Women’s sexual compliance with male dating partners: associations with investment in ideal womanhood and romantic well-being. Sex Roles. 2008;60:347–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. O’Sullivan LF, Allgeier ER. Feigning sexual desire: consenting to unwanted sexual activity in heterosexual dating relationships. J Sex Res. 1998;35:234–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Meston CM, Buss DM. Why humans have sex. Arch Sex Behav. 2007;36:477–507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Cooper ML, Shapiro CM, Powers AM. Motivations for sex and risky sexual behavior among adolescents and young adults: a functional perspective. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;75:1528–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Carver CS, Sutton SK, Scheier MF. Action, emotion, and personality: emerging conceptual integration. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2000;26:741–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Gable SL, Impett EA. Approach and avoidance motives and close relationships. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2012;6:95–108. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00405.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Impett EA, Peplau LA, Gable SL. Approach and avoidance sexual motives: implications for personal and interpersonal well-being. Pers Relat. 2005;12:465–82. This empirical article demonstrates the utility of applying an approach-avoidance motivational perspective to the study of sexual in dating relationships. Whereas on days when people engaged in sex for approach goals they experienced more positive emotions and relationship satisfaction, on days when they engaged in sex for avoidance goals, they experienced more negative emotions, less satisfaction and more relationship conflict.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Muise A, Impett EA, Desmarais S. Getting it on versus getting it over with: sexual motivation, desire, and satisfaction in intimate bonds. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2013;39:1320–32. This empirical article was the first in the literature to document the effects of people’s sexual goals on their romantic partner’s feelings about the relationship. On days when people engaged in sex for approach goals, they experienced less sexual desire, and both partners experienced decreased relationship and sexual satisfaction. In contrast, on days when people engaged in sex for avoidance goals, they reported lower sexual desire, and both partners’ experienced declines in satisfaction.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Impett EA, Strachman A, Finkel EJ, Gable SL. Maintaining sexual desire in intimate relationships: the importance of approach goals. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008;94:808–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Finkenauer C, Vohs KD. Bad is stronger than good. Rev Gen Psychol. 2001;5:323–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Gottman JM. What predicts divorce? Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  65. McNulty JK, Fincham FD. Beyond positive psychology? Toward a contextual view of psychological processes and well-being. Am Psychol. 2012;67:101–10.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Markus HR, Kitayama S. Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol Rev. 1991;98:224–53. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Impett EA, Le BM, Asyabi-Eshghi B, Day LC, Kogan A. To give or not to give? Sacrificing for avoidance goals is not costly for the highly interdependent. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2013;4:649–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Clark MS, Mills J. Communal (and exchange) relationships. In: Van Lange PAM, Kruglanski AW, Higgins ET, editors. Handbook of theories of social psychology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2012. p. 232–50.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  69. Mills J, Clark MS, Ford TE, Johnson M. Measurement of communal strength. Pers Relat. 2004;11:213–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Muise A, Impett EA. Are you game? The benefits of sexual communal strength. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Sex Research Forum, Ottawa; 2012.

  71. Burke TJ, Young VJ. Sexual transformations and intimate behaviors in romantic relationships. J Sex Res. 2012;49:454–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Shifren JL, Monz BU, Russo PA, Segreti A, Johannes CB. Sexual problems and distress in United States women. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:970–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Fritz HL, Helgeson VS. Distinctions of unmitigated communion from communion: self-neglect and overinvolvement with others. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;75:121–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Nagurney AJ. The effects of relationship stress and unmitigated communion on physical and mental health outcomes. Stress Health J Int Soc Invest Stress. 2007;23:267–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Muise A, Impett EA. Is it good to be giving in the bedroom? The costs and benefits of communal motivation in the sexual domain. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Academy for Sex Research, Dubrovnik; 2014.

  76. Santos-Iglesias P, Sierra JC, Vallejo-Medina P. Predictors of sexual assertiveness: the role of sexual desire, arousal, attitudes and partner abuse. Arch Sex Behav. 2013;42:1043–52. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9998-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Brauer M, Lakeman M, van Lunsen R, Laan E. Predictors of task-persistent and fear-avoiding behaviors in women with sexual pain disorders. J Sex Med. 2014. doi:10.1111/jsm.12697.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Elmerstig E, Wijma B, Bertero RNT. Why do young women continue to have sexual intercourse despite pain? J Adolesc Health. 2008;43:357–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Rosen NO, Muise A, Bergeron S, Impett EA, Boudreau G. Approach and avoidance sexual goals in couples with provoked vestibulodynia: Associations with sexual, relational, and psychological well-being. (in press). This is the first empirical article to apply approach-avoidance motivational theory to the study of provoked vestibulodynia (PVD). Women’s higher avoidance goals were associated with their own lower sexual satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, and greater depressive symptoms. Partners of women with PVD who reported higher avoidance goals also reported lower relationship satisfaction. Women’s higher approach goals were associated with their own greater sexual and relationship satisfaction.

  80. Reed BD, Harlow SD, Sen A, Legocki LJ, Edwards RM, Arato N, et al. Prevalence and demographic characteristics of vulvodynia in a population-based sample. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:170.e171-179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Hucker A, McCabe M. Incorporating mindfulness and chat groups into an online cognitive behavioral therapy for mixed female sexual problems. J Sex Res. 2014;1–13. doi:10.1080/00224499.2014.888388.

  82. Ayling K, Ussher JM. “If sex hurts, am I still a woman?” The subjective experience of vulvodynia in hetero-sexual women. Arch Sex Behav. 2008;37:294–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Smith KB, Pukall CF. Sexual function, relationship adjustment, and the relational impact of pain in male partners of women with provoked vulvar pain. J Sex Med. 2014;11:1283–93. doi:10.1111/jsm.12484.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Dewitte M, Van Lankveld J, Crombez G. Understanding sexual pain: a cognitive-motivational account. Pain. 2010. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2010.10.051.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Cherner RA, Reissing E. A comparative study of sexual function, behavior, and cognitions of women with lifelong vaginismus. Arch Sex Behav. 2014;42:1605–14. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0111-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Farmer MA, Meston CM. Predictors of genital pain in young women. Arch Sex Behav. 2007;36:831–43.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Witting K, Santtila P, Varjonen M, Jern P, Johansson A, Von Der Pahlen B, et al. Female sexual dysfunction, sexual distress, and compatibility with partner. J Sex Med. 2008;5:2597–9. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00984.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Elmerstig E, Wijma B, Swahnberg K. Prioritizing the partner's enjoyment: a population-based study on young Swedish women with experience of pain during vaginal intercourse. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;34:82–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Elmerstig E, Wijma B, Sandell K, Berterö C. “Sexual pleasure on equal terms”: young women’s ideal sexual situations. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;33:129–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. MacNeil S, Byers ES. Role of sexual self-disclosure in the sexual satisfaction of long-term heterosexual couples. J Sex Res. 2009;46:3–14. doi:10.1080/00224490802398399.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Bois K, Bergeron S, Rosen NO, McDuff P, Gregoire C. Sexual and relationship intimacy among women with provoked vestibulodynia and their partners: associations with sexual satisfaction, sexual function and pain self-efficacy. J Sex Med. 2013;10:2024–35. doi:10.1111/jsm.12210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Herbernick D, Mullinax M, Mark K. Sexual desire discrepancy as a feature, not a bug, of long-term relationships: women’s self-reported strategies for modulating sexual desire. J Sex Med. 2014;11:2196–206. doi:10.1111/jsm.12625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Jacobson NS, Christensen A, Prince SE, Cordova J, Eldridge K. Integrative behavioral couple therapy: an acceptance-based, promising new treatment for couple discord. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68:351–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Finkel EJ, Hui CM, Carswell KL, Larson GM. The suffocation of marriage: climbing Mount Maslow without enough oxygen. Psychol Inq. 2014;25:1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. McNulty JK, Fisher TD. Gender differences in response to sexual expectancies and changes in sexual frequency: a short-term longitudinal study of sexual satisfaction in newly married couples. Arch Sex Behav. 2008;37:229–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. McNulty JK, Karney BR. Positive expectations in the early years of marriage: should couples expect the best or brace for the worst? J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004;86:729–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by an Insight Grant from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) awarded to Emily A. Impett and Amy Muise; an Operating Grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) awarded to Natalie O. Rosen and Emily A. Impett; and a SSHRC Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship awarded to Amy Muise.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

ᅟ

Conflict of Interest

Emily A. Impett declares the receipt of grants from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation, and from Canadian Institute for Health Research during the preparation of this paper.

Amy Muise declares grant support from an Insight Grant from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) during the preparation of this paper.

Natalie O. Rosen declares no conflicts of interest related to this work.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Toronto Mississauga, 3359 Mississauga Road, Mississauga, ON, L5L 1C6, Canada

    Emily A. Impett & Amy Muise

  2. Dalhousie University, 1355 Oxford Street, P.O. Box 15000, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2, Canada

    Natalie O. Rosen

Authors
  1. Emily A. Impett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amy Muise
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Natalie O. Rosen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily A. Impett.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Female Sexual Dysfunction and Disorders

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Impett, E.A., Muise, A. & Rosen, N.O. Is It Good to Be Giving in the Bedroom? A Prosocial Perspective on Sexual Health and Well-Being in Romantic Relationships. Curr Sex Health Rep 7, 180–190 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-015-0055-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-015-0055-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation