love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 130
Diversidad Cultural
FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS AND LOVE STYLES
AMIGOS CON BENEFICIOS Y ESTILOS DE AMOR
García-Serrán, H(1).; Torregrosa-Rodríguez, R(2). & Soriano-Ayala, E(2).
(1) Servicio Andaluz de Salud. Granada (España)
(2) Universidad de Almería. Almería (España)
Recibido | Received: 30/09/2021
Aprobado | Approved: 02/12/2021
Publicado | Published: 17/12/2021
Correspondencia | Contact: Encarna Soriano-Ayala |esoriano@ual.es
0000-0002-9506-0625
ABSTRACT
Keywords
love styles
relationships
datting
the satisfaction, the future aspiration of the participants and the styles of
love. Method: 400 people of Spanish nationality completed a questionnaire
a common practice, although the romantic relationship is more prevalent
universe, forms of polyamory that coexist with traditional relationships
and gender roles that are transforming.
RESUMEN
Palabras clave
estilos de amor
relaciones
citas
los diferentes subtipos que la componen. Pretende conocer el predominio,
la satisfacción, la aspiración futura de los participantes y los estilos de
amor. Método: 400 personas de nacionalidad española completaron un
cuestionario sobre vínculos relacionales y estilos de amor. Resultados:
romántica es más prevalente y satisfactoria. Los estilos de amor son
un universo relacional cambiante, formas de poliamor que conviven con
las relaciones tradicionales y roles de género que se están transformando.
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 131
INTRODUCTION
Technology has revolutionised dating and today individuals enjoy multiple opportunities to
Hand et al, 2013). In
this new, globalised relationships paradigm, traditional romantic encounters exist alongside
Jonason, 2013).
Committed or romantic relationships represent an exclusive monogamous sentimental union,
Shulman & Connolly, 2013).
Conversely, casual sexual relations occur between individuals who have just met and who
have no intention of meeting again. These relations frequently occur at night, in clubs and
bars or parties where alcohol is abundant (Paul et al., 2000; Epstein et al., 2009). Friendships
Bisson & Levine, 2009; Puentes et al., 2008;
Hughes et al., 2005).
The amorous complexity of this sexual paradigm has been described by Williams et al. (2007),
True Friends
These are friendships with love, respect, trust, consideration and sex.
Just Sex
Network Opportunism: These are acquaintances that frequent situations with abundant
Transition In: The goal is to transition to a romantic relationship, and sex is considered
a compatibility test.
Transition Out
not always depicted objectively, having become a stereotype for many romantic comedies
portraying the transition towards a romantic relationship (Easton & Hardy, 2013). In fact,
Bisson & Levine, 2009;
Eisenberg et al., 2009; Owen & Fincham, 2011). There are several explanations for this:
come to an end, (Reeder, 2012), although between 18.5% and 26% end in rupture (Bisson
y Levine, 2009; Owen et al., 2013), and 76% of these cases are strengthened by sex (
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 132
). Others argue the impossibility of friendship becoming a permanent romantic
relationship because of the predisposition towards Othello syndrome (Easton & Hardy, 2013;
Thalmann, 2008).
emotional and sexual dependency found in the heteropatriarchal model. Polyamory is having
more than one intimate, loving and sexual long-term relationship at the same time, with the
Easton & Hardy, 2013; Thalmann, 2008).
The double standards derived from the heteropatriarchal model are applied to women who
blameless and rewarded (Sierra et al., 2007). The majority of studies show that women are
less involved (Owen & Fincham, 2011; Merriam-Pigg, 2012; Jonason et al., 2015), that they
hope for the relationship to evolve into a stable union (Lehmiller et al., 2011; Williams &
Adams, 2013; Jonason, 2013), and experience less psychological wellbeing (Grello et al.,
2006; Merriam-Pigg, 2012; Williams & Adams, 2013; Furman & Collibee, 2014). However, the
latter is questionable since research by Williams and Jovanovic (2015) showed women felt
greater emotional-sexual satisfaction. Furthermore, the greater number of women in friends
transformation of traditional sexual roles, in rebellion against these double standards (Green
& Morman, 2008; Soriano-Ayala & García-Serrán, 2019).
(; Paul et al., 2000; Manning et al., 2005; Grello et al., 2006; Williams
et al., 2007; Emmet, 2008; Goodboy & Myers, 2008; Bisson & Levine, 2009; Green & Morman,
2008; Eisenberg et al., 2009; VanderDrift et al., 2010; ; Wentland &
Reissing, 2011; Owen & Fincham, 2011; Lehmiller et al., 2011; Weaver et al., 2011; Merriam-
Pigg, 2012; Jonason, 2013; Owen et al., 2013; Klipfel et al., 2013; Giorgi, 2013; Williams &
Adams, 2013; García et al., 2014; Adams et al., 2014; Furman & Collibee, 2014; Williams &
Jovanovic, 2015; Braithwaite et al., 2015). The majority of studies use university students as
subjects, which presents problems when comparing and extrapolating results.
This study focuses on the love styles of the subjects, similar to Paul and collaborators (2000),
Grello et al. (2006) and more recently Jonason and colleagues (2015). According to
colour wheel of love (1973) there are 6 love styles with a characteristic colour: three primary;
Eros, Ludus and Storge and three secondary; Manis, Agape and Pragma.
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 133
•
sexual satisfaction is considered a basic need.
• Ludus (blue). Love is considered a game to amuse and divert, without emotional
commitment, falling in love or obligation.
• Storge (yellow). Similar to brotherly or family love between spouses, cousins, parents
and children. This is characterised by loyalty, commitment and based on similar
interests.
•
and jealousy are common traits.
• Agape (orange). This is the purest, most altruistic and spiritual form of love. It is
love.
• Pragma (green). This love is pragmatic, rational and realist, based on convenience.
This is a relationship based on cooperation and symbiosis, thereby achieving the most
durable relationships (Chaudhuri, 2004).
(LAS). Abbreviated versions of 18 and 24 items were later developed. ().
OBJETIVES
Williams
et al. (2007) and to identify the love styles associated with these relationships.
Given that the majority of people aspire to a romantic relationship and that this is a relationship
that almost everyone has experienced at least once (Easton & Hardy, 2013), particular
importance is given to those that have, or had, a romantic relationship when measuring the
This study has the following objectives:
•
the Williams et al., typology.
• Compare the degree of satisfaction derived from romantic relationships with that of
FwB.
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 134
• Determine whether those with no intention of initiating or continuing a romantic
relationship have the intention of starting or continuing to have FwB relationships.
• Using the love styles determined by Lee (1973), followed by the conclusions reached
by , to distinguish and understand what love styles men
and women hope.
• Determine and evaluate the predominant love style in each type of relationship
(romantic or FwB).
METHOD
Participants
The total sample was 400 subjects: 267 females (66.8%), 132 males (33%) with one subject
(0.3%) who did not consider themselves male nor female. Requirements for participation were
to have had at least one romantic relationship (RR) and/or one FwB relationship.
The majority of the sample declared themselves to be heterosexual (78%); followed by bisexual
(14.3%); homosexual (5.5%); pansexual (0.8%) and asexual (0.3%). Five subjects preferred not
to declare their sexual orientation (1.3%).
Ages ranged from 18 to 58 years (M = 25.84, SD = 7.48). Subjects originated from all of the
Spanish Regional Autonomies, 77.5% from urban areas and 22.5% from rural areas.
Religious beliefs were 51% atheist, (23.3%); agnostic, (20%); Christian, (1.5%); non-
denominational with a personal spiritual life (1.3%); pagans represented (1%); muslims (0.5%)
the remainder were Buddhist; Deist; Pantheist; believers in reincarnation; Rastafarianism and
followed by 15.3 % who gave it little importance and 13.3% who gave it some importance.
Only 5.5% gave religion quite a lot of importance and 1% gave it a lot of importance.
completed secondary education; 2.5% held Doctorates and just 1%, had only completed
primary education.
At the time of completing the questionnaire, 91 of the subjects had no relationship although
they had previously had one; 174 were in a romantic relationship (46.3%); 101 were in a FwB
relationship of the True Friends type (49%); 61 in the Just Sex type (33.3%); 60 in Transition
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 135
explains the fact that of 174 participants with romantic relationships, 19 simultaneously held
FwB Transition In relationships (10.9%); 18 held True Friends (10.3%); 11, Just Sex (6.3%); 6,
Table 1
Summary of relationships held by subjects in the sample
No current
relationship
With past
relationship
In a single relationship In valrious, simultaneous
relationships
RR TF JS NO TI TO Several FwB RR and one FwB
91 114 34 11 7 13 3 67 60
Instruments
A 3-part questionnaire was elaborated.
1. Personal details and demographics. Included questions on gender, age, address, level of
education, sexual orientation, religion and its importance. The response to this last question
was on a 5-point scale: 0 – None / 5 – Very important.
2. Type of current or past relationship
2.1 The aim of this section was to determine whether subjects were in, or had had a romantic
relationship. The questions were: Have you had any type of romantic relationship? (Yes/No).
Total number of romantic relationships. Are you currently in a romantic relationship (Yes/
Williams et al. (2007)
Transition In/Transition Out/NS-NC).
Not all of the variables from this section were used, leaving a large collection of data for
future research.
3. The third part of the questionnaire consisted of a Love Attitudes Scale: Short Form
(), in a translation by the research team, since the only available format
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 136
the scale has not changed. The Spanish version is adapted to the non-exclusivity of the couple.
The pilot study revealed the necessity of changing the initial response scales therefore the
scales are translated and adapted: 1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree. The scale
of the Scale reached Cronbach .70.
style or archetype EROS; scores 5 to 8 for LUDUS; scores 9 to 12 for STORGE; scores 13 to 16
PRAGMA; scores 17 to 20 for MANIA and 21 to 24 for AGAPE.
Procedure
address, thereby limiting the chances of bias. Consisting of 52 items on 16 pages with the
two months. At closure, a total of 476 responses had been recorded, of which 400 were valid.
The others were rejected due to incompletion.
The welcoming page of the survey informed users of the complete anonymity of the responses
and the duration, approximately 10 minutes, with the only limitation for participation being
the age of 18. They were informed that data would be used in research.
Ethical considerations
The University of Almeria Bioethics committee approved the study. Participants were
anonymous and informed of the use of the data gathered for research purposes.
Data analysis
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to determine whether the data distribution adjusted
to a normal curve and to determine the statistical tests to apply. Frequencies and percentages
normal compliance of these variables.
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 137
p), using the value limits reference
proposed by Richardson (2011): .0099, .0588 y .1379, indicating the small, medium and large
RESULTS
Most satisfactory type of fwb relationship
Of a total 330 subjects with experience in FwB relationships (82.5%), 206 (62.4%) had
experienced True Friends type; 189 Transition In (57.3%); 183 Just Sex (55.5%); 143 Transition
A total of 151 (45.8%) rated True Friends as the most satisfactory; followed by 75 Transition In
(22.7%); 36 Just Sex (10.9%); 35 unsure and unable to choose (10.6%); 19 Transition Out (5.8%)
Romantic Relationship satisfaction vs. Friends with Benets
satisfaction with romantic relationships with the variables; satisfaction with FwB relationships
of type Just Sex (Z = -3.74; pZ = -4.59; p = .000), Transition
In (Z = -4.19; p = .000) and Transition Out (Z = -6.67; p = .000).
compared to FwB relationships types: Transition In (M = 3.64; SD = .90 VS M = 3.29; SD = 1.05),
Just Sex (M = 3.61; SD = 1.01 VS M = 3.18; SDM = 3.71; SD =
.93 VS M = 2.95; SD = 1.20) and above all Transition Out (M = 3.71; SD = .90 VS M = 2.75; SD =
1.30). The only FwB relationship that was rated more satisfactory than romantic relationships
was True Friends (M = 3.66; SD = 1.00 VS M = 3.77; SD = 1.03), however, this relationship was
Z = -.86; p = .392).
Intention of continuing/initiating a romantic relationship vs. FwB
relationship of any type in the future, relative to whether or not there was an intention to
aspire to romantic relationship or not: χ² (4, N = 196) = 20.591, (p = .000) for True Friends; χ²
(4, N = 173) = 23.493, (p = .000) for Just Sex; χ² (4, N = 93) = 11.356, (p
Opportunism; χ² (4, N = 182) = 9.774, (p = .044) for Transition In and χ² (4, N = 139) = 14.287,
(p = .006) for Transition Out.
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 138
It was observed that with the exception Transition Out, where subjects were more hesitant,
the majority of those that did not intend to maintain or return to a romantic relationship, did
(81.3%) and Just Sex (72.4%).
In subjects who were uncertain whether or not they wanted to maintain or initiate a stable
True Friends (60%) and Just Sex (55.6%). Although this was less than those subjects who were
relationships, subjects were as undecisive at the prospect of this type of relationship as of
romantic relationships
In those subjects who aspired to have a romantic relationship, Transition Out was the least
sought after or willing to maintain (4.6%); as opposed to True Friends (39.5%), which was the
only type the majority of subjects were certain of.
Dierent loving styles according to gender and FwB relationships
To contrast the nul hypothesis that observed covariant matrixes of the dependent variables
(the six loving attitudes) are equal in all groups, the Ljung-Box test was performed for gender
and each type of relationship studied.
the Ho in all groups could not be ruled out (M Ljung-Box = 17.835; F = .833; p = .681). The
(M Ljung-Box = 20.998; F = .976; p = .490) or who had never had FwB (M Ljung-Box = 22.475;
F = .955; p = .518).
M Ljung-
Box = 20.273; F = .934; p = .546); Transition Out (M Ljung-Box = 17.287; F = .808; p = .713);
Transition In (M Ljung-Box = 22.808; F = 1.068; pM Ljung-Box =
14.078; F = .654; p = .881); Just Sex (M Ljung-Box = 20.121; F = .942; p = .535); or True Friends
(M Ljung-Box = 29.734; F = 1.393; p = .108).
Covariance observed in all groups were equal, therefore, multivariant analysis was carried
out.
simple (Pillai trace = .120; F(12, 392) = 4.084; p = .000). Table 2 represents the average points
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 139
Women have greater scores in Mania love style (M=2.94), while men have greater scores in
Table 2
Global love style dierences according to gender
Man Woman Other
M DT M DT M F P partial
Eros 3.51 .58 3.57 .56 3.25 .50 .608 .003
Ludus 2.79 .75 2.76 .70 4 1.56 .212 .008
Storge 3.19 .88 3.07 .88 2.75 .97 .382 .005
Pragma 2.05 .71 2.15 .78 1 1.95 .143 .010
Mania 2.81 .85 2.94 .81 1 3.73 .025* .019
Agape 2.65 .91 2.25 .79 1 11.48 .000** .056
F(12, 322) = 3.184; p = .000).
Women obtained higher scores than men in Pragma (M=2.19 and M=2.01, respectively), while
men obtained higher scores in Agape (M=2.63 and M=2.23, respectively). For the remaining
Pragma was small, and medium on Agape.
Table 3
Dierences according to gender for love styles in subjects with FwB
Man Woman Other
M DT M DT M F P partial
Eros 3.58 .51 3.60 .55 3.25 .266 .767 .002
Ludus 2.87 .74 2.81 .70 4 1.582 .207 .010
Storge 3.16 .91 3.09 .88 2.75 .277 .758 .002
Pragma 2.01 .70 2.19 .78 1 3.053 .049* .019
Mania 2.86 .84 2.93 .83 1 2.863 .059 .018
Agape 2.63 .91 2.23 .77 1 9.694 .000** .057
F(6,
70) = 3.418; p = .006).
In this instance, women once again obtained higher median scores than men for Mania (M=2.59)
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 140
Table 4
Dierences according to gender for love styles in subjects who had never had FwB
Man Woman
M DT M DT F P partial
Eros 3.27 .77 3.42 .62 .756 .388 .011
Ludus 2.49 .71 2.52 .68 .024 .870 .000
Storge 3.34 .74 2.95 .89 3.450 .068 .048
Pragma 2.21 .70 2 .77 1.270 .264 .018
Mania 2.59 .91 3.01 .77 4.121 .046* .057
Agape 2.73 .91 2.34 .84 3.207 .078 .045
FwB in general (Pillai trace = .058; F(6, 392) = 3.954; p = .001).
Those who have or who have had FwB, obtain greater scores in the Eros love style (M=3.59)
Table 5
Dierences according to having FwB in general for love styles
FWB No FWB
M DT M DT F P partial
Eros 3.59 .54 3.36 .67 9.405 .002* .024
Ludus 2.83 .72 2.51 .69 11.911 .001* .030
Storge 3.11 .89 3.09 .86 .032 .857 .000
Pragma 2.13 .76 2.07 .75 .257 .612 .001
Mania 2.90 .83 2.86 .84 .151 .698 .000
Agape 2.35 .84 2.48 .88 1.309 .253 .003
The MANOVA according to having had True Friends type of FwB demonstrated statistically
F(6, 392) = 3.954; p = .001).
Subjects who have, or have had True Friends type of FwB obtained better average scores in
Table 6
Dierences for love styles according to having FwB of True Friend type
FWB No FWB
M DT M DT F P partial
Eros 3.57 .51 3.53 .63 .602 .438 .002
Ludus 2.90 .64 2.65 .77 12.334 .000** .031
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 141
FWB No FWB
M DT M DT F P partial
Storge 3.23 .88 2.98 .87 7.623 .006* .019
Pragma 2.12 .77 2.11 .75 .034 .853 .000
Mania 2.83 .81 2.95 .85 1.918 .167 .005
Agape 2.40 .87 2.35 .83 .301 .583 .001
F(6, 392) = 2.679; p = .015).
found in the remaining love styles (Table 7).
Table 7
Dierences for love styles according to having had Network Opportunism style FwB
FWB No FWB
M DT M DT F P partial
Eros 3.55 .61 3.55 .56 .011 .915 .000
Ludus 3.02 .69 2.69 .71 15.594 .000** .038
Storge 3.19 .90 3.08 .88 1.214 .271 .003
Pragma 2.13 .74 2.11 .77 .057 .811 .000
Mania 2.88 .83 2.89 .84 .008 .927 .000
Agape 2.37 .87 2.38 .84 .017 .897 .000
(Pillai trace = .041; F(6, 392) = 2.751; p = .012).
Subjects who currently had or once had Transition Out FwB obtained greater scores in Eros
between men and women (Table 8).
Table 8
Dierences for love styles according to having had Transition Out FwB
FWB No FWB
M DT M DT F P partial
Eros 3.68 .54 3.48 .58 10.357 .001* .026
Ludus 2.85 .71 2.73 .72 2.756 .098 .007
Storge 3.09 .90 3.11 .87 .046 .829 .000
Pragma 2.10 .74 2.13 .77 .143 .705 .000
Mania 2.95 .81 2.86 .85 .959 .328 .002
Agape 2.41 .90 2.36 .82 .364 .547 .001
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 142
Lastly, the MANOVA according to having had Transition In style FwB showed no statistically
F (6, 392) = 1.263; p = .273). Similarly, the MANOVA
trace = .025; F (6, 392) = 1.632; p = .137).
DISCUSSION
Williams et al. (2007). This was the only study to have described the universe of Friends with
limitations this implies.
once. This was congruent with other studies, where it is the predominant sexual interaction
among university students (Bisson and Levine, 2009; Bradshaw et al., 2010). Nevertheless,
this sample was not university students and is quite heterogeneous. In this sense, the results
are similar to those of Lehmiller and colleagues (2011)
population, using the internet to capture subjects involved in such relationships.
The most prevalent style of FwB relationship in this sample was True Friends, as it was in
research by Williams et al. (2007). This may be due to the fact that it is the purest FwB
theory and popular culture (Hughes et al., 2005; Puentes et al., 2008; Bisson and Levine,
2009). This may also explain how this style of FwB was considered the most satisfactory.
Despite the fact that FwB was a common practice in our sample, 94% of respondents were
to be the most extended socially, despite changes to sexual guidelines (Easton and Hardy,
2013; Siebenbruner, 2013).
Furthermore, relative to the second objective of this study, romantic relationships were
considered to be the most satisfactory above all other sub-types of FwB, with the exception
to polyamory (Thalmann, 2008; Easton and Hardy, 2013), the socially desirable norm is a
monogamous stable relationship. Models of polyamory based on initiating a FwB relationship
are non-existent, therefore the strategies are the same as for a romantic relationship, since
this is what has been socially learned (Taormino, 2015
social majority believes sexual exclusivity and jealousy are natural human traits; therefore a
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 143
social acceptability of romantic relationships may be the reason for the various dissatisfactions
(Thalmann, 2008; Easton and Hardy, 2013; Taormino, 2015). This may also explain the fact
that True Friends is considered equal to romantic relationships. It is also the most prevalent,
remaining sub-types are harder to label. Furthermore, in this type of relationship, people
McGynti et al., 2007, Puentes et al., 2008, Green and Morman,
2008; Bisson and Levine, 2009, Lehmiller et al., 2011, Weaver et al., 2011).
Concerning future aspirations relative to the bond, the majority of subjects with no romantic
interest wished for any type of FwB relationship, with the exception of Transition Out. This
means they desired security, sex and closeness, but want to avoid the emotional complexities
and potential pain a committed romantic relationship might cause. FwB may be the result of
a pondered decision and not exclusively to satisfy a stimulus (Bisson y Levine, 2009; Weaver
et al. 2011). Subjects were doubtful of having a Transition Out relationship, which may be
of anxiety depending on the duration and stability of the previous bond (Márquez, 2005).
In fact, 51.7% of subjects who had experienced such a relationship reported having gone
encounters.
Concerning love styles (Lee, 1973) and their relationship with gender, women stand out in
women are more emotionally dependent and possessive than men (; Alonso-
Arbiol et al., 2002; Valor-Segura, Expósito and Moya, 2014; Valor-Segura, Expósito, Moya
and Kluwer, 2014). Gonzalez-Jimenez and Hernández-Romera (2014) conclude that although
Paul and collaborators (2000) concluded that in situations
of sex without commitment, women were more Agapic in love. This may be explained by the
traditional heteropatriarchal paradigm of sexual expectations, whereby women are expected
to provide the man with satisfaction and pleasure. This may indicate a change in paradigm;
submissive to men.
In cases of having had a FwB relationship, men once again stand out in Agapic style while
women stand out in Pragma. This result coincides with that of
and may be explained by the fact that we live in a world where sex is a commodity (Lucas-
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 144
Matheu, 2009), a misogynistic society, where women are considered products, and should they
choose to have a FwB relationship they should be practical and realistic in their socio-sexual
choice, since they may be hurt (Easton and Hardy, 2013). Furthermore, the equality between
may be explained by the Williams and Jovanovic (2015) theory which announces a feminist
transition concerning sexual practices, challenging the sexual morality double standard.
According to this theory, women who have engaged in such open relationships are more
ideologically feminist and less emotionally dependent, since this aspect is negatively related
to feminist attitudes.
Those subjects who once had or who currently have a FwB relationship stood out for their love
styles of Eros and Ludus, compared to those subjects who had never had a FwB relationship.
These styles are consistent with casual relationships, playing games and entertainment, a
Grello et al., 2006; Paul et al.,
2000).
and Storge love styles. In addition to sharing similar interests, loyalty and responsibility in
without loving or emotional investment, in line with the hypothesis developed by VanderDrift
et al., 2010.
Lastly, subjects who had experienced a Transition Out relationship stood out in Eros love style,
with strong physical and emotional attraction with sexual satisfaction (Márquez, 2005).
This study also had some limitations, such as the data collection: it would have been desirable
to extend the period the questionnaire was available in order to increase the sample size and
publish it on other social media and use university emails.
the satisfaction of a romantic relationship, although we are experiencing important changes
with sex with friends and show pragmatism, empowerment and attention to their own
desires, while those who have not initiated casual sexual relationships are more possessive
and emotionally dependent. Furthermore, men appear to be reformed, being more altruistic
in their spiritual and loving styles. All of this reveals a metamorphosis emerging from the
context of polyamory, where gender roles appear to be converging and love styles are being
transformed.
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 145
REFERENCES
Personality and Individual
Dierences, 66, 204-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.008
sexual activity in cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
17(2), 205-222. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265407500172003
Alonso-Arbiol, I., Shaver, P.R. & Yárnoz, S. (2002). Insecure attachment, gender roles, and
interpersonal dependency in the Basque Country. Personal Relationships, 9, 479-490.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00030
Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 38, 66-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9211-2
Sex Roles, 62(9-10), 661-669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9765-7
Braithwaite, S.R., Aaron, S.C., Dowdle, K.K., Spjut, K., & Fincham, F.D. (2015). Does Pornography
Sexuality
& Culture, 19, 513-532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-015-9275-4
Chaudhuri, M. (2004). Feminism in India. Women Unlimited.
Easton, D. & Hardy, J.W. (2013). Ética promiscua. Una guía práctica para el poliamor, las
relaciones abiertas y otras aventuras. Melusina.
emotionally damaging? Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 41(4), 231-
237. https://doi.org/10.1363/4123109
and Dating Status on Relational Maintenance. Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Paper 3490.
Journal of Sex
Research, 46(5), 414-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490902775801
Furman, W., & Collibee, C. (2014). Sexual Activity with Romantic and Nonromantic Partners
and Psychosocial Adjustment in Young Adults. Archives of sexual behavior, 43(7),
1327-1341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0293-3
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 146
acquaintances as sexual partners. Journal of Sex Research, 48(6), 554-564. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2010.535623
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 132, 241-247.
requirements for the Bachelor of Science Degree in Child Development. California
Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo.
Gonzalez-Jimenez, A.J. & Hernández-Romera, M.M., (2014). Emotional dependency based on
the gender of Young adolescents in Almería, Spain. Procedia – Social and Behavioral
Sciences 132, 527-532.
Goodboy, A.K., & Myers, S.A. (2008). Relational maintenance behaviors of friends with
Human Communication,
11, 71-86.
relationship. Human Communication. A Publication of the Pacic and Asian
Communication Association 14(4), 327-346.
Grello, C.M., Welsh, D. P., & Harper, M.S. (2006). No strings attached: The nature of casual
sex in college students. Journal of Sex Research, 43(3), 255-267. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00224490609552324
and romantic relationships: Intimacy and couple satisfaction associated with online
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(1), 8-13.
ournal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50, 392-402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.392
Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 15, 147-159. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0265407598152001
Western Journal of Communication, 69, 49-66. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10570310500034154
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 147
students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1407-1414. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10508-013-0189-7
Personality and Individual
Dierences, 75, 205-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.042
Klipfel, K.M., Claxton, S.E., & van Dulmen, M.H. M. (2013). Interpersonal aggression
victimization within casual sexual relationships and experiences. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 29(3), 557-569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513505207
Lee, J. A. (1973). Colours of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. New Press.
Journal of Sex Research, 48(2-3), 275-284. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00224491003721694
Lucas-Matheu, M., (2009). Sed de piel ¿Feminizar el futuro? Psimática.
romantic sexual activity. Social Science Research, 34(2), 384-407. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.03.001
Márquez Otero, X. (2005). Ni contigo ni sin ti: la pareja irrompible. Revista intercontinental
de psicología y educación, 7(2), 27-42.
College Student Journal, 41(4), 1128-1131.
Relationships and those Involved. Master’s Theses. Paper 4150.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 311-
320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9611-6
relationship: Deception, psychological functioning, and social connectedness.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1443-1449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-
0160-7
Journal of Sex Research,
37(1), 76-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490009552023
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 148
relationships. College Student Journal, 42, 176–180.
Psychology Today. https://www.
in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6, 135-147
Why do I think I’m nothing without a man?
Shulman, S. & Connolly, J. (2013). The Challenge of Romantic Relationships in Emerging
Adulthood: Reconceptualization of the Field. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1) 27-39.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696812467330
Siebenbruner, J. (2013). Are college students replacing dating and romantic relationships with
Journal of College Student Development, 54(4), 433-438. https://doi.
org/10.1353/csd.2013.0065
Sierra, J.C., Rojas, A., Ortega, V. & Martin-Ortiz, J.D. (2007). Evaluación de actitudes sexuales
machistas en universitarios: primeros datos psicométricos de las versiones españolas
de la Double Standard Scale (DSS) y de la Rape Supportive Attitude Scales (RSAS).
International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 7, 41-60
sus comportamientos sexuales, amor, celos y creencias románticas. Universitas
Psychologica, 18(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy18-2.absc.
Taormino, T. (2015). Opening Up: Una Guía para crear y mantener relaciones abiertas. Melusina
Thalmann, Y. (2008). Las virtudes del poliamor. La magia de los amores múltiples. Plataforma
Valor-Segura, I., Expósito, F. & Moya, M. (2014). Gender, dependency and guilt in intimate
ex Roles, 70(11-12), 496-505. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0351-2
Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 44(9), 579-633. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12250
relationships: Implications for relationship and safe-sex outcomes. Personal
Relationships, 19, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01324.x
Weaver, A.D., MacKeigan, K.L., & MacDonald, H.A. (2011). Experiences and perceptions of
The Canadian
Journal of Human Sexuality, 20(1), 41-53.
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 149
of casual sexual relationships. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20, 75-89.
University of Arizona
at Tempe.
Williams, J.C & Jovanovic, J. (2015). Third Wave Feminism and Emerging Adult Sexuality:
Sexuality & Culture, 19, 157-171. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12119-014-9252-3
meaning and contexts of uncommitted sexual relationships among Mexican American
and European American adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 1110-
1117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.04.023
Autores / Authors Saber más / To know more
Herenía García-Serrán
Sexología por la Universidad de Almería. Doctora por la
Universidad de Almería. Trabaja en el Servicio Andaluz de
Salud de Motril.
0000-0002-9994-7389
Rafael Torregrosa-Rodríguez
Licensed Health Psychologist, Sexologist and
Hypnotherapist. Col. AN08407. Graduated in Psychology
Sexology Sciences from the University of Almería. Expert
in Transsexuality from the COP-AO. Psychologist and
Sexologist at Centro Médico Olisalud and Artea Psicología
Seville delegation of the COP-AO. Member of the Spanish
Society for Intervention in Sexology (SEIS). Member of
Co-coordinator of GNOMOS (Group of Non-Monogamies
of Seville). Currently focused on research and activism
in New Masculinities and Non-Monogamous Relationships
(Polyamory).
0000-0002-8912-985X
love styles. MODULEMA. Revista Cientíca sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 130-150. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.30827/modulema.v5i.22355
MODULEMA | ISSN: 2530-934X | VOLUMEN 5. ARTÍCULO 8. PÁGINAS 130-150 | 150
Encarnación Soriano-Ayala
Profesora titular de la Universidad de Almería (España),
y directora del grupo de investigación HUM665
Sus líneas de investigación se centran en la educación
sexual, la violencia en el noviazgo y la violencia sexual
desde una perspectiva transcultural. Autora de más
de 100 artículos en revistas indexadas en JCR o SJR.
Ha impartido conferencias en Congresos y Seminarios
Internacionales (México, Chile, Francia, Ecuador, EEUU,
España). Ha realizado estancias de investigación en
universidades extranjeras como la Universidad de Harvard
y la Universidad de California (EEUU), Universidad de
Alberta (Canadá), Universidad de Nottingham (Reino
Unido), PUC de Valparaíso (Chile) y la Universidad de
Montpellier (Francia).
Associate Professor at the University of Almería (Spain),
research focus on sexual education, teen dating violence
and sexual violence from a transcultural perspective.
Author of more than 100 articles in journals indexed
in JCR or SJR. She has given lectures at International
Congresses and Seminars (Mexico, Chile, France, Ecuador,
USA, Spain). She has carried out research stays at foreign
universities such as Harvard University and the University
of California (USA), University of Alberta (Canada),
University of Nottingham (United Kingdom), PUC of
Valparaiso (Chile), University of Montpellier (France).
0000-0002-9506-0625
