Father’s Day’s best kept secret – Womens’ sex lives are profoundly influenced by the relationship with their Fathers Raj Persaud and Peter Bruggen

· Uncategorized

Father’s Day’s best kept secret – Womens’ sex lives are profoundly influenced by the relationship with their Fathers


Raj Persaud and Peter Bruggen


20130414_194857The sexualization of young girls is of mounting concern, with the Western media blamed as primary culprit.


But now a new series of remarkable psychology experiments is about to be published which reveals a powerful, yet hitherto unsuspected, influence on girls’ sexuality, and it’s right at the heart of family life.


Fathers could be profoundly influential on the subsequent sexual and romantic lives of their daughters, without anyone in the family previously realising it.


A million UK children are growing up without a father in their lives, according to a new report earlier this week from The Centre for Social Justice.  Some parts of the UK have become “men deserts” due to the high number of fatherless households. Lone parent families are increasing by more than 20,000 a year and will top two million by the next general election.


What the report writers would not know is a series of psychological studies yet to be published, dramatically indicates the influence of absent fathers. This could be more profound that previously suspected, and might endure for generations.


Danielle DelPriore and Sarah Hill from Texas Christian University in the USA point out previous psychological research has found a robust association between father absence – both physical and psychological – with sexual risk taking in daughters.


Father absence promotes ‘short-term mating strategies’ in daughters which renders one parent families more likely in future generations. The new findings bring more precision to our understanding of the effects of father absences.


Their study entitled ‘The Effects of Paternal Disengagement on Women’s Sexual Decision Making: an Experimental Approach’ was partly inspired by Frayser High School in Memphis, Tennessee, recently hitting national headlines in the USA, when it was revealed that one in five female students was pregnant, or had recently given birth.


DelPriore and Hill noticed that in addition to high rates of teen pregnancy, Tennessee has one of the highest rates of sexually transmitted infections in the US, with nearly one in four families being headed by single mothers. Could all of these findings be linked in some way?


Evolutionary theory predicts that those growing up in harsh or unpredictable family environments might develop more impetus to pass on their genes, through earlier physical maturation and engaging in a ‘fast life’. This means early and risky sex, investment in offspring quantity over quality.


During harsh conditions, the evolutionary imperative of ‘survival of the fittest’ favours a shortened ‘reproductive timetable’. This ensures passing on genes to future generations before perishing.


DelPriore and Hill point out that previous research indeed confirms this evolutionary theory by finding that girls growing up in father-absent homes – or in homes characterized by low-quality paternal investment -experience accelerated pubertal development, initiation of sexual intercourse and becoming pregnant earlier.  They also have a greater number of sexual partners, and are more likely to get divorced; relative to girls growing up in households with two ‘investing’ parents.


Yet DelPriore and Hill have now conducted a remarkable series of new experiments, soon to be published in the ‘Journal of Personality and Social Psychology’, which demonstrate how unambiguous is the power of father absence, even in women from stable fairly privileged backgrounds, namely undergraduate students.


The experiments involved randomly assigning women (most of whom were brought up in two parent families) to describe a time their father was physically or psychologically absent, or present, for an important life event. Thewomen’s degree of sexual permissiveness was assessed by their subsequent answers to questions such as “Sex without love is OK,” “I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying casual sex with different partners,” and “I would have to be closely attached to someone (both emotionally and psychologically), before I could feel comfortable and fully enjoy having sex with him”.


The startling finding is that just briefly thinking about a past time of paternal disengagement, significantly increased female attitudes to sexual permissiveness, including the number of men with whom women desired to have sex, and how many people they foresaw themselves having sex with during the next 5 years.


Merely recalling an episode of father absence in their lives, compared with maternal absence, elevated the number of people the women predicted they were going to have sex with over the next five years from just under two, to almost three, which was a statistically significant effect.

The researchers also examined the impact of thinking about father absence on attitudes toward condom use, as measured by questions such as, “I dislike using condoms due to reduced sexual pleasure,” and “Condoms ruin the mood because you have to stop to put one on”.


Remembering past episodes of paternal disengagement produced a significant negative impact on attitudes toward condom use in both women and men.  But the effect was stronger for women.


DelPriore and Hill point out that women’s attitudes toward condom use predicts engaging in unprotected sex. The results of their experiments suggest that paternal ‘disengagement’ in daughters’ lives, renders women increasingly willing to engage in unsafe sex. This ‘risky shift’ contributes to the links reliably observed between father absence and daughters’ increased teen pregnancy, plus sexually transmitted infection risk.


DelPriore and Hill conclude that their research has demonstrated a stronger unique effect of fathers on daughters’ sex lives relative to sons’.


And there is something about the father’s decision-making to absent themselves which is crucial.  Previous research, DelPriore and Hill point out, on the daughters of widows – whose fathers are involuntarily absent – do not experience the ‘accelerated sexual development’ typically observed in girls whose fathers are absent due to marital discord, or disruption.


According to evolutionary theory girls are uniquely sensitive at an unconscious and biological level to father absence—or low-quality paternal care—during their childhoods. Father absence shifts girls toward faster reproduction strategies – precocious sexual development, earlier sexual activity, plus younger age at first sexual encounter.


Evolutionary theory predicts women would not benefit from delaying romance and sex to search for a ‘high investing mate’ in environments where male parental care is scarce.


DelPriore and Hill point out that one of the strengths of their current series of studies is the emergence of these father–daughter effects within samples of female undergraduates attending their university from relatively advantaged, intact families.


Just thinking about past father absences produced remarkable effects in shifting these women towards being more sexually permissive, although the female participants started out a relatively conservative group in terms of attitudes to uncommitted sex and sexual risk.


So this Father’s Day, it would appear vital, according to latest psychological research, that, for their daughters’ sake, and for the sake of families, plus society at large, the enormous psychological importance of Fathers is acknowledged.





Many thanks for your comment. Many apologies the experiments reported produced results which are not approved of by some. There are several possible responses when presented with experimental results not to our liking. One is to attack the University, the profession of those conducting the research, religious background, professional bodies, the integrity of the funding, racial composition of the college, where the University is located, what someone somewhere may or may not have said at another time, linked in some way to the subject etc etc. Another possible response, might be to read the original research paper carefully, and consider pros and cons in the methodology, or find other experimental evidence for or against. Which response reveals an appetite for getting at whatever counts for truth as opposed to prejudice? The irony is that the accusers of prejudice in others, can suffer more from it more than they realise, and often reveal it in their accusation. Prejudice is not usually a good thing – in others or in us. Scientists conduct experiments based on the idea that we are error prone in our beliefs, and independent testing might reveal more, than just assuming we are right. Our article is an attempt to draw attention to the fact there is work on these fascinating topics. With the limited word count we are given we could not provide all the data and all the experiments – many of which support a wide variety of different viewpoints. Apologies for that.

Many thanks for your comments. The authors cite at least 8 different studies independently finding ‘a robust association between father absence—both physical and psychological—and accelerated reproductive development and sexual risk taking in daughters’ – this is in the first few paragraphs, so you can’t have missed this. Why didn’t you report this above? Just one of these papers is entitled, ‘Impact of fathers on risky sexual behaviour in daughters: A genetically and environmentally controlled sibling study’, in journal ‘Development and Psychopathology’ February 2012, pp 317 – 332. Risky Sexual Behaviour based on number of sexual partners and amount of high-risk sexual activity. Participants reported sexual behaviour frequency when they were high school age (14–17 years old). “How many different partners did you have sex with before age 19?” “Did you ever have unprotected sex?” “Did you ever use alcohol and/or drugs prior to or in conjunction with participation in sexual activity?” etc etc. Overall, of 101 sister pairs; ages 18–36, 48.3% of sisters from ‘biologically disrupted’ families and 33.3% of sisters from ‘biologically intact’ families, reported engaging in at least one high risk sexual behaviour between 14 and 17 years old. Older and younger sisters were asked to report the number of hours per week their father spent taking care of them before and after their parents’ separation/divorce. The authors conclude their data supports the hypothesis that higher quality Father-Daughter Relationships are uniquely protective against Risky Sexual Behaviour in daughters.
There were several different experiments in this paper – I don’t know why you have only reported on the first one. In Experiment 2: Effects of Paternal Disengagement on Women’s Sexual Permissiveness 64 heterosexual female undergraduates – (29 in the paternal disengagement condition) participants describing a time their biological father was absent or present – degree of sexual permissiveness was assessed via their responses to Sociosexual Orientation Inventory – a reliable and valid measure of willingness to engage in uncommitted sex. Women who described a time that their father was disengaged, reported more permissive sexual attitudes relative to women who described a time that their father was engaged, with such a large effect this was statistically significant. Experiment 3: Can the Effects of Paternal Disengagement on Women’s Sexual Permissiveness Be Produced by the Disengagement of Any Close Other? 82 heterosexual female undergraduates took part – instead of describing a time their father was engaged, half of participants were asked to describe a time that a close friend disappointed them or was absent for an important life event. Women who described a time their father was disengaged reported more permissive sexual attitudes relative to women who described a time a close friend was disengaged – again the effect was so large as to reach statistical significance. In addition, women who described a time their father was disengaged, reported desiring a greater number of sexual partners relative to women in the friend disengagement condition.
In the original paper we wrote about by DelPriore and Hill, there were 5 separate experiments – but for some reason only one has been reported on and commented on here. I have already commented on Experiments 2 and 3 in the paper. There were also, Experiment 4: Relative Effects of Paternal and Maternal Disengagement on Women’s Attitudes Toward Sexual and Nonsexual Risk and Experiment 5: Effects of Paternal Disengagement on Men’s and Women’s Negativity Toward Condom Use. There were five different tests all of which produced results all pointing in the same direction. The authors conclude they have provided experimental evidence supporting a causal relationship between paternal disengagement and changes in women’s psychology that promote risky sexual behaviour. Now clearly this finding is not to the liking of some people. If those people are open-minded and fair, they should be able to nominate an experiment which once conducted, might produce results that would cause them to change their minds.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: