Positioning the Booty-Call Relationship on the Spectrum of Relationships: Sexual but More Emotional Than One-Night Stands

Abstract

Most research on human sexuality has focused on long-term pairbonds and one-night stands. However, growing evidence suggests there are relationships that do not fit cleanly into either of those categories. One of these relationships is a “booty-call relationship.” The purpose of this study was to describe the sexual and emotional nature of booty-call relationships by (a) examining the types of emotional and sexual acts involved in booty-call relationships and (b) comparing the frequency of those acts in booty-call relationships to one-night stands and serious long-term relationships. In addition, the manner in which sociosexuality is associated with the commission of these acts was also examined. Demonstrative of booty-call relationships’ sexual nature was individuals’ tendency to leave after sex and infrequent handholding. In contrast, the romantic nature of booty-call relationships was demonstrated through the frequency of acts like kissing. The results suggest the booty-call relationship is a distinct type of relationship situated between one-night stands and serious romantic relationships.

Acknowledgments

We thank Laura Madson and Pamela Izzo for reviewing an earlier version of this manuscript.

Notes

¹A booty-call itself “is a communication initiated towards a non-long-term relationship partner with the urgent intent either stated or implied, of having sexual activity and/or intercourse” (Jonason, Li, & Cason, 2009, p. 3).

²For an alternative perspective on booty-calls—one that does not involve evolutionary psychology—see Caruthers (2006) for an examination of how sociocultural factors may impact the development of such relationships.

³Unfortunately, we did not keep track of this and, therefore, cannot provide another estimate of the frequency of these relationships.

⁴In most research, women report fewer sexual and romantic relationships than men do (e.g., Jonason & Fisher, 2009). This discrepancy, we suspect, is the result of the small sample size and not veridical differences.

Note. Comparisons among superscripts are significant at p < .05. The scale ranges from 1 (not at all), 2 (a little), 3 (moderately), 4 (much), to 5 (very much).

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Note. Means and standard deviations were omitted to save space, and can be obtained by contacting Peter K. Jonason. Negative values mean women scored higher than men.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Note. Comparisons among superscripts are significant at p < .05.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

⁵This difference is on the small side and, thus, we urge caution in its over-interpretation.