CHIEN LIU Wagner College
A Theory of Marital Sexual Life
Why does the frequency of marital sex decrease
with marital duration? Does the probability of in-
volvement in extramarital sex increase or de-
crease with marital duration, and why? I develop
a theory to answer these questions. I apply the
law of diminishing marginal utility and human
capital theory to explain the basic observed de-
cline in the frequency of marital sex with marital
duration. Based on the above explanation, I de-
velop a discussion on the relationship between
marital duration and extramarital sex, and I de-
rive two hypotheses, which are supported by sta-
tistical analyses of the National Health and Social
Life Survey data.
It is well known that marital duration negatively
affects the frequency of marital sex. However, we
know little about how martial duration affects ex-
tramarital sex. Extramarital sex has enormous dis-
ruptive potential for marriages, and it is frequently
cited by divorced persons as a prime reason for
the dissolution of their marriages (South & Lloyd,
1995). Therefore, a better understanding of the
factors influencing the frequency of marital and
extramarital sex should be of great theoretical and
practical value. However, factors contributing to
these two types of sexual behavior are not well
understood. This article develops a theory that ex-
plains the basic observed patterns of sex between
marital partners and makes two predictions con-
cerning extramarital sex.
Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Parker Hall, Wag-
ner College, Staten Island, NY 10301 (chienliu@wagner.
edu)
Key Words: extramarital sex, gender, marital sex, theory.
Journal of Marriage and the Family 62 (May 2000): 363–374
Previous research reports that the frequency of
marital sex declines with marital duration (Blum-
stein & Schwartz, 1983; Call, Sprecher, &
Schwartz, 1995; Greenblat, 1983; James, 1981;
Jasso, 1985; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948;
Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953; Mas-
ters, Johnson, & Kolodny, 1992; Trussell & Wes-
toff, 1980; Udry, Deven, & Coleman, 1982). Al-
though aging is correlated with this decline,
Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) find empirical ev-
idence that the impact of age and duration are ap-
proximately equal. Moreover, it has been discov-
ered that the declining frequency of marital sex
cannot be accounted for by ‘‘background’’ vari-
ables such as premarital sex, education, income,
and religion (Greenblat, 1983; Masters et al.,
1992).
Previous studies on marital sex frequency and
extramarital sex are strong on empirical analysis
but weak on theoretical explanation. Much of the
previous research on marital sexual behavior has
been in the tradition of ‘‘sexual demography’’, or
a mapping of the relationships between sexual be-
havior and social background variables (Davis,
1974; Edwards & Booth, 1976; Thompson, 1983).
For example, in their studies of the frequency of
marital sex, most researchers focus mainly on in-
dividual or social characteristics and on social
control, attributing the declining frequency of
marital sex to biological aging, attitudes about
sex, the work status of a couple, presence of
young children, marital satisfaction, race, gender,
and religion (Call et al., 1995; Greenblat, 1983;
James, 1981; Olson & DeFrain, 1994; Udry et al.,
1982). The most commonly cited explanation of
this phenomenon is an intuitive one: The declining
frequency of marital sex is due to the loss of nov-
363
364
elty, which is often referred to as the ‘‘honeymoon
effect’’ or the ‘‘Coolidge effect’’ (Blumstein &
Schwartz, 1983; Call et al., 1995; James, 1981;
Jasso, 1985). Although these studies have contrib-
uted to our knowledge of the patterns of marital
sex, they hardly go beyond a description of these
patterns to develop a theory of marital sexual be-
havior. Specifically, in spite of an accumulation of
evidence that the frequency of marital sex declines
with marital duration, this observed phenomenon
remains theoretically unexplained; that is, a causal
mechanism is not identified. (A theory is a set of
explanations that forms a deductive system; a phe-
nomenon is said to be explained if it can be de-
duced from some initial conditions and at least
one postulate. [See Homans, 1967; Jasso, 1985;
Liu 1996; Markovsky, 1994; Popper, 1972.])
In recent years, some interesting hypotheses
concerning human sexual tendencies have been
derived from evolutionary perspectives such as
sociobiology and evolutionary biology (for a re-
view see Lancaster, 1994; Posner, 1992). Evolu-
tionary approaches argue that individuals are
faced with trade-offs in the allocation of resources
between mating effort and parental investment. It
follows that once a couple has children, the part-
ners will shift their resource allocation, devoting
less resources to marital sex and more to the nur-
ture and support of their offspring. Consequently,
the frequency of marital sex declines.
Though evolutionary theory provides some
general hypotheses regarding human sexual ten-
dencies, it tells us little about how individuals
make their sexual choices. Human beings make
choices and are able to resist the natural tendency
developed in evolution (Posher, 1992). For in-
stance, more and more couples intentionally re-
main childless. As a result, evolutionary ap-
proaches might not be able to explain some
empirical patterns of sexual behavior. For exam-
ple, previous research reports that the frequency
of marital sex declines with marital duration, net
of the effect of the presence of children (Call et
al., 1995; Jasso, 1985). This empirical finding
would be hard for evolutionary theory to explain.
By contrast, social scientists are mainly inter-
ested in explaining individual behavior and how
macrosocial phenomena emerge from individual
actions (Coleman, 1990). In social sciences, ratio-
nal choice theory analyzes how individuals
choose their courses of action. In what follows, I
embed the ‘‘honeymoon effect’’ explanation with-
in a much broader rational choice approach to sex-
ual behavior. Then I analyze the relationship be-
Journal of Marriage and the Family
tween marital duration and extramarital sex and
derive two hypotheses. I test the derived hypoth-
eses by a statistical analysis of the data from the
National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS)
(Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994).
The theory developed in this article can im-
prove our understanding of some patterns of mar-
ital sexual life and individuals’ motivation to en-
gage in extramarital sex. Specifically, this theory
answers questions such as: Why, and how, does
the frequency of marital sex decrease with marital
duration? Does the probability of involvement in
extramarital sex increase or decrease with marital
duration, and why? Although the following anal-
ysis does not cover all aspects of marital sexual
life, the systematic treatment of two fundamental
aspects perhaps justifies this paper’s use of the ti-
tle ‘‘A theory of marital sexual life.’’
THEORY
Explaining the Declining Frequency of Marital
Sex: Diminishing Marginal Utility and Human
Capital Investment
Rational choice theory postulates that an actor
chooses a course of action that maximizes his/her
utility, subject to the constraints of this actor’s re-
sources and social institutions. It is also common-
ly assumed that, other things being equal, the mar-
ginal utility (MU) of consuming a good or service
diminishes as the consumption of that good or ser-
vice increases (Coleman, 1990). This assumption
is often called the law of diminishing marginal
utility (DMU). Below, I apply the postulate of ra-
tionality and the DMU assumption to explain the
phenomenon of the declining frequency of marital
sex with marital duration.
Viewed as rational action, sexual behavior
shows substantial points of similarity to other
types of behavior. First, sexual behavior is typi-
cally voluntary. Second, people have preferences.
Third, a market for sexual interaction exits. In ad-
dition, sexual action provides a certain level of
utility. The problem that an actor faces is how to
maximize the utility derived from his or her mar-
ital sexual actions and other actions subject to the
constraints of his or her resources. The problem
can be formulated as: Max U (S, X), subject to G
(S, X) 5 C; where U denotes a utility function;
G denotes a constraint; S denotes marital sex; X
denotes the consumption of another good or ser-
vice produced in the family (e.g., listening to mu-
sic with a spouse); and C is a constant denoting
A Theory of Marital Sexual Life
the total amount of resources at an actor’s dispos-
al. A necessary condition for maximizing U sub-
ject to G is:
MUs /a 5 MUx /b (1)
where MUs denotes the marginal utility of S; MUx
denotes the marginal utility of X; a and b are the
units of physical, emotional, or time input re-
quired for obtaining each unit of S and X (i.e.,
price or marginal cost). Equation (1) means that
at the utility-maximizing point, each unit of S and
X should yield the same amount of marginal util-
ity given one unit of input allocated to them. Oth-
erwise, the total utility can be increased by allo-
cating more resources to the good or service that
brings about a larger amount of marginal utility.
Because of DMU, we know that, other things be-
ing equal, MUs decreases as S increases. As MUs
decreases, equality (1) will become an inequality:
MUs/a , MUx/b, ceteris paribus. As a result, giv-
en the constraint, the total utility could be in-
creased by shifting resources from S to X; that is,
more of X will be consumed, and S will become
less frequent. This reallocation of resources will
continue until the equality MUs/a 5 MUx/b is re-
stored.
In other words, marital sexual actions between
a husband and a wife initially bring about a rel-
atively high level of satisfaction; therefore, one
can expect sexual activity to be more frequent. As
marital sex increases, the level of satisfaction low-
ers; thus fewer resources will be allocated to it.
Consequently, the frequency of marital sex de-
clines. (A formal derivation is provided in the Ap-
pendix.) If correct, this theory claims that, ceteris
paribus, the sole effect of the diminishing marital
utility of marital sex will cause the frequency of
marital sex to decline with marital duration. For
simplicity, this explanation will be referred to as
the ‘‘DMU explanation’’ or the ‘‘DMU effect’’ in
the remainder of this paper.
Although the DMU explanation predicts a cor-
rect direction of the changes in the frequency of
marital sex, it is not sufficient to explain the em-
pirical pattern of the frequency of marital sex.
Specifically, the DMU explanation generally pre-
dicts that the frequency of marital sex decreases
at a constant rate (see Appendix). But the previous
research shows that, ceteris paribus, the frequency
of marital sex decreases less and less steeply
(James, 1981; Jasso, 1985). Thus other factors
need to be considered to improve this explanation.
The DMU explanation is not unique within the
365
framework of rational choice theory. An equally
plausible counterargument can also be derived
from the rational choice theory of marriage. Ac-
cording to Becker, Landes, and Michael (1977),
married persons invest in their marriage specific
capital, including houses, children, market and
nonmarket skills, sexual adjustment with one’s
spouse, and information. England and Farkas
(1986) argue that a marriage is a long-term rela-
tionship and that both partners have incentives to
invest in the marriage specific human capital—
abilities to provide empathy, companionship, sex-
ual pleasure, intellectual pleasure, social status, or
earnings. The accumulation of relationship-specif-
ic human capital raises the expected gain and
makes both parties better off (England & Farkas,
1986).
Clearly, this perspective suggests that, with an
increase in human capital stock—knowledge
about the spouse’s sexual preferences, desire, hab-
its, and skills—the pleasure of marital sex could
actually increase with the knowledge gained from
past sexual experience between spouses. In other
words, as marital sex increases, it might become
increasingly rewarding; that is, MUs could in-
crease with marital duration. This theory actually
predicts that the effect of human capital invest-
ment will cause the frequency of marital sex to
increase with marital duration. For simplicity, this
explanation will be referred to as the ‘‘human cap-
ital explanation’’ or the ‘‘human capital effect.’’
Adding the human capital effect to the DMU
explanation, one can better explain the empirical
pattern of the frequency of marital sex: Both the
DMU effect and the human capital effect could
affect changes in the frequency of marital sex. The
empirical finding that the frequency of marital sex
declines less and less steeply with duration sug-
gests that the DMU effect dominates the human
capital effect. The role played by the human cap-
ital effect is to offset some of the DMU effect so
that the frequency of marital sex declines less and
less steeply with marital duration. Thus, the phe-
nomenon of the declining frequency of marital sex
with marital duration is deduced from or ex-
plained by rational choice theory.
Two Hypotheses Concerning Extramarital Sex
A married actor can have two types of partnered
sex, marital sex and extramarital sex. What is the
relationship between marital duration and extra-
marital sex? The DMU and human capital expla-
nations about marital sex have opposite implica-
366
tions. Following the human capital explanation,
one would expect the likelihood of an actor’s en-
gaging in extramarital sex to decrease with marital
duration for two reasons. First, marital sex is in-
vested with affective elements, ‘‘thereby creating
‘socioemotional closeness and exchange’ rather
than just ‘psychophysiological pleasure and re-
lief’’’ (Posner 1992, p. 112), implying that marital
sex provides a higher level of utility than extra-
marital sex. Second, the investment in the rela-
tionship-specific human capital, which makes
marital sex increasingly rewarding over time,
should make extramarital sex an increasingly less
attractive option. Therefore, the probability of ex-
tramarital sex should become increasingly less
likely with marital duration.
By contrast, the DMU explanation suggests an
opposite prediction. If the MUs decreases with
marital duration, it can be hypothesized that, other
things being equal, over the course of a marriage
a rational actor would become more likely to en-
gage in extramarital sex for the following reason:
The DMU assumption suggests that, ceteris pari-
bus, the MU of a sexual action with an old partner
is lower than that of a sexual action with a new
partner. As marital duration increases, MUs con-
tinues to decline so that it becomes increasingly
lower than that of a sexual action with a new part-
ner. Therefore, a rational actor would become in-
creasingly more likely to engage in extramarital
sex because the total utility can be increased by
allocating more resources to the good or service
that yields a larger amount of MU.
It is well known that in families men and wom-
en play different roles, have different preferences,
and express themselves sexually in different ways.
These gender differences imply that the effects of
marital duration on extramarital sex might vary
by gender. Though it is nearly impossible to ex-
amine gender difference in the frequency of mar-
ital sex, gender differences in extramarital sex can
be examined and are well known. The NHSLS
reports that 24.5% of men and 15% of women
have experienced extramarital sex (Laumann et
al., 1994). In addition, extramarital sex incurs
costs of negative internal and external sanctions
such as feelings of guilt and the possible disso-
lution of the marriage if the extramartial sex is-
discovered. Therefore, adding gender and cost
considerations to the current analysis can help
specify the relationship between extramarital sex
and marital duration.
Previous research shows that men tend to in-
vest more in their career than in a relationship
Journal of Marriage and the Family
(England & Farkas, 1986); in addition, physical
pleasure is more important to men than to women
in a sexual relationship (Masters et al., 1992). We
can expect that, initially, a man has more incentive
to invest in his marriage specific human capital,
because the marginal return on the investment is
larger due to the lack of such capital, suggesting
that he is less likely to engage in extramarital sex.
As the investment increases, its marginal return
will eventually decrease because of the law of di-
minishing marginal returns (Becker, 1991; Ehr-
neberg & Smith, 1994; Lipsey & Courant, 1996).
For example, Rubin (1992) observed that couples
tried different ways (i.e., investing in the human
capital) to enhance their marital sexual satisfac-
tion; however, the results were less and less sat-
isfactory. Therefore, we can expect that, at a point
in the marriage (call this point a critical value of
marital duration), MUs and marginal returns of hu-
man capital investment could diminish to such an
extent that the expected payoff of extramarital sex
becomes larger than its expected cost, implying
that a man has stronger and stronger incentives to
engage in extramarital sex to seek a higher level
of satisfaction from sexual variety. Thus we can
predict:
Hypothesis 1: For men, the relationship be-
tween the likelihood of extramarital sex and
marital duration is convex (U-shaped); that
is, over the course of marriage, the likeli-
hood of extramarital sex decreases to a min-
imum at a point in marriage and thereafter
increases.
In contrast to married men, women tend to
make more relationship-specific investments
(England & Farkas, 1986). It is also known that,
for women, emotional attachment and satisfaction
are more important than physical pleasure in a
sexual relationship (Buss, 1994; Masters et al.,
1992). Therefore, one can expect that, ceteris par-
ibus, the longer a woman stays in a marriage, the
more relationship-specific human capital she ac-
cumulates, the higher the expected cost of extra-
marital sex, and, as a result, the less likely she
will engage in it. Thus we can predict:
Hypothesis 2: For women, the likelihood of
extramarital sex decreases with marital du-
ration.
A Theory of Marital Sexual Life
METHOD
Data
The empirical analyses presented below are based
on the NHSLS, which is a probability sample of
3,432 noninstitutionalized U.S. residents ages 18
to 59. The analyses are based on two sets of mar-
ried respondents. The first set consisted of those
who had not yet experienced divorce or separation
by the time of the interview. The second set con-
sisted of those who had experienced either divorce
or separation by the time of the interview. For the
latter set, the analyses focused on extramarital
sexual activity during the most recent marriage.
Homosexual respondents were excluded.
Dependent Variable
Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested by estimating lo-
gistic regression equations. To examine the hy-
pothesized relationship between marital duration
and the likelihood of extramarital sex, one needs
a dependent variable that specifies when extra-
marital sex occurred. The NHSLS provides such
information by asking respondents about the num-
ber of their sexual partners during the past year
and the past 5 years. Because the selected respon-
dents had been living in a marriage during the past
5 years, they undoubtedly had engaged in extra-
marital sex if they had more than one sexual part-
ner. The restriction that marital duration is equal
to or greater than 5 years was imposed in calcu-
lating the descriptive statistics and in the logistic
regression analysis. (The percentage of respon-
dents who engaged in extramarital sex during the
previous year was 3.6%, too small to create suf-
ficient variation in the dependent variable; there-
fore, this variable was not used in the analysis. In
a separate analysis where this variable was used
as the dependent variable, even though most of
the coefficients of the marital duration were con-
sistent with the two hypotheses, they were not sig-
nificant. Results are available upon request.)
The Major Independent Variable
Marital duration, the major explanatory variable,
was measured by years and was obtained by sub-
tracting the time when the marriage began or
when the couple started living together from the
time of the interview. Marital duration squared
was incorporated to model the hypothesized con-
vex relationship between the dependent variable
and duration of marriage.
367
Control Variables
The Master status variables. Prior research on
sexual behavior has identified several social and
demographic variables that influence sexual be-
havior. According to Laumann et al. (1994), gen-
der, race, age, education, marital status, and reli-
gion are the basic components of individuals’
master status that organize their patterning of so-
cial relations, shape their understanding of the so-
cial world, and influence their sexual behavior.
Among these master status variables, this study
controlled for age, gender, race, education, and
church attendance. Age was included as a contin-
uous variable, and a quadratic term of age was
also incorporated into the model. Some research-
ers find that age and marital duration are linearly
correlated. In this study, the value of the deter-
minant of correlation between age and marital du-
ration is .95, indicating no sign of severe multi-
collinearity. (The value of determinant 5 1
indicates no multicollinearity at all, while the val-
ue of the determinant 5 0 indicates perfect mul-
ticollinearity.) However, the age at marriage is lin-
early correlated with marital duration; therefore,
it was not included in the models (the value of
the determinant of correlation is .08). Laumann
and his colleagues (1994) found the period effect
of sexual revolution. In a separate analysis, the
birth cohorts used by Laumann et al. were also
incorporated into the analyses. The cohorts have
no significant effect on extramarital sex for either
gender. Results are available upon request.
Race (White, Black, and other racial group)
was included as a dummy variable. ‘‘Other racial
group’’ served as the reference group. Education,
measured by highest grade completed by the re-
spondent, was included as a continuous variable,
ranging from 1 (grade 8 or less) to 8 (other ad-
vanced degree).
Church attendance was included in the model
as a continuous variable, ranging from 0 (never)
to 8 (several times a week). Church attendance
might affect an actor’s extramarital sexual behav-
ior in two ways. First, a person who belongs to
and attends church is regularly exposed to sexual
norms that proscribe extramarital sex; therefore,
he or she is more likely to internalize such norms
and adhere to them. Thus extramarital sex might
incur a heavy cost of internal sanctions. Second,
it can be said that those who regularly attend
church services form a closure of social networks.
This closure is featured by frequent communica-
tion among members and is indispensable for
368
sanctioning a target actor who violates norms
(Coleman, 1990). Taking these two factors into
account, one can hypothesize that those who go
to church regularly are less likely to engage in
extramarital sex than those who do not.
Marital sex, children, and health. According to
the theory developed above, declining physical
pleasure of marital sex has a positive effect on the
likelihood of extramarital sex. To examine this ef-
fect in the empirical analyses, I incorporated into
the model a variable that measures the physical
pleasure of marital sex. The NHSLS asked re-
spondents how physically pleasurable they found
their relationship with their primary sexual partner
(i.e., spouse for the sample selected for this study)
to be: extremely pleasurable, very pleasurable,
moderately pleasurable, slightly pleasurable, or
not at all pleasurable. The categories were coded
from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating higher
physical pleasure from marital sex. (Marital hap-
piness was not included because was not available
in the data set.)
The number of children of respondents was
also incorporated into the analyses. Childrearing
is a form of human capital investment that in-
creases a person’s stake in his or her family.
Therefore, one can expect the number of children
to reduce the likelihood of extramarital sex. Chil-
dren do increase a person’s stake in relationship-
specific investments; however, because children
normally require an intense and continuing con-
tribution in time and effort from both parents,
their presence might also negatively affect a cou-
ple’s sex life. For example, if one or both partners
devote too much attention to their children, the
frequency or quality of the couple’s sexual en-
counters might be reduced. This would increase
the probability of one or both of them becoming
involved in extramarital sex. The presence of chil-
dren might have either of the two opposing effects
on extramarital sex. Thus, whether the presence
of children increases or decreases the probability
of extramarital sex is an empirical question, de-
pending on which effect is dominant.
In addition, this study controlled for the re-
spondents’ health status. The NHSLS asked re-
spondents to describe their general health. The re-
sponse categories are (1) excellent, (2) good, (3)
fair or (4) poor. It is plausible to expect that a
healthier actor is more likely to engage in extra-
marital sex, other things being equal.
Sexual interests. Two variables that measure re-
Journal of Marriage and the Family
spondents’ sexual interests were controlled for.
The NHSLS asked respondents how often they
think about sex (Thinksex) and how often think-
ing about sex makes them feel guilty (Guiltsex).
For Thinksex, the response categories range from
1 (once a month) to 6 (several times a day). For
Guiltsex, the response categories range from 1
(never) to 5 (nearly always). One can expect, oth-
er things being equal, that individuals with strong
sexual interests will be more likely to engage in
extramarital sex, and individuals who feel guilty
thinking about sex will be less likely to engage in
extramarital sex.
Masturbation is another indicator of sexual in-
terest and preference. Masturbation can be either
a complement to, substitute for, or independent of
partnered sex (Laumann et al., 1994), suggesting
that how masturbation affects extramarital sex is
mainly an empirical question. Therefore, mastur-
bation should be incorporated into the model.
However, the measurement of masturbation poses
a limitation for this study. In the NHSLS, respon-
dents were asked to report masturbating for the
past year. However, the dependent variable is mea-
sured by the extramarital sexual activity in the
past 5 years. Due to this temporal mismatch be-
tween the two variables, no masturbation variable
was included in the model. In a separate analysis,
the frequency of masturbation was incorporated
into the model. The results are similar to those
reported in this paper. The frequency of mastur-
bation had no significant effect on extramarital sex
for either gender. Results are available upon re-
quest.
Attitudes about extramarital sex. The NHSLS also
asked respondents about their attitudes about ex-
tramarital sex (Exmarsex). This variable was cod-
ed from 1 (always wrong) to 4 (not wrong at all).
One can expect, other things being equal, that in-
dividuals who think that extramarital sex is wrong
will be less likely to engage in extramarital sex.
Employment characteristics. Because opportunity
is an important constraint on an actor’s search for
a sexual partner, the empirical analyses included
four variables that measured employment charac-
teristics. The NHSLS asked respondents: ‘‘At
your job, is it frequently the case that you are
alone with one of your clients, customers or co-
workers?’’ (Wkalone); ‘‘Does your job require
that you touch your clients, customers or co-work-
ers?’’ (Wktouch); and ‘‘Does your job require that
you discuss the personal concerns of your clients,
A Theory of Marital Sexual Life 369

TABLE 1. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE VARIABLE IN THE ANALYSIS: NHSLS

Variable Both Genders Male Female

Dependent variable
Extramarital sex (0 5 no, 1 5 yes) .099 .143 .066
(.298) (.350) (.249)
Independent variables
Marital duration 17.454 17.437 17.466
(9.246) (8.984) (9.444)
(Marital duration) 2
390.067 384.628 394.159
(391.582) (375.521) (403.431)
Control variables
Gender (0 5 female, 1 5 male) .429 — —
(.495)
Respondent’s age 41.268 42.689 40.230
(9.217) (8.848) (9.354)
(Respondent’s age)2 1,789.407 1,800.523 1,705.821
(783.620) (769.250) (784.430)
White (0 5 no, 1 5 yes) .829 .830 .822
(.379) (.376) (.382)
Black (0 5 no, 1 5 yes) .102 .100 .103
(.303) (.300) (.305)
Other (0 5 no, 1 5 yes) .072 .070 .074
(.259) (.255) (.262)
Education 4.247 4.384 4.171
(1.694) (1.767) (1.634)
Church attendance 4.216 3.885 4.466
(2.700) (2.682) (2.689)
Number of children 2.502 2.576 2.447
(4.005) (5.846) (1.555)
Physical pleasure of maritial sex 4.249 4.336 4.183
(.779) (.751) (.749)
Health 1.702 1.681 1.718
(.702) (.707) (.689)
Thinksex 3.055 3.438 2.768
(.938) (.878) (.877)
Guiltsex 1.208 1.217 1.201
(.580) (.569) (.589)
Exmarsex 1.305 1.380 1.248
(.671) (.766) (.583)
Central City (0 5 no, 1 5 yes) .180 .165 .192
(.384) (.371) (.394)
Wkalone (0 5 no, 1 5 yes) .664 .567 .739
(1.114) (.607) (1.383)
Wkdiscss (0 5 no, 1 5 yes) .419 .253 .548
(1.123) (.558) (1.402)
Wktouch (0 5 no, 1 5 yes) .322 .131 .472
(1.136) (.486) (1.437)
Total 1,372 589 783
Note: Means are in cells, and standard deviations are in parentheses.

customers or co-workers?’’ (Wkdiscss) One can
expect that, other things being equal, those with
more opportunities (e.g., to be alone with, to dis-
cuss personal concerns with, or to touch clients,
customers or co-workers) will be more likely to
engage in extramarital sex. In addition, extramar-
ital sex is less costly, in terms of search and con-
cealment, for people living and working in a large
central city than for those living and working in
a rural area; therefore, the place of residence was
also controlled for.
RESULTS
The descriptive statistics for the variables used in
the empirical analyses are reported in Table 1. To
test the two hypotheses, separate logistic equa-
tions controlling for other effects were estimated
370 Journal of Marriage and the Family

TABLE 2. COEFFICIENTS FOR THE LOGISTICS REGRESSION OF EXTRAMARITAL SEX DURING THE PAST 5 YEARS ON
SELECTED INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Variable Both Genders Male Female

Marital duration 2.195*** 2.176** 2.227*

(.062) (.081) (.139)
(Marital duration)2 .004*** .005** .003
(.002) (.002) (.004)
Master status variables
Gender .627*** — —
(.247)
Respondent’s age .106 .315 .142
(.131) (.202) (.213)
(Respondent’s age)2 2.002 2.004* 2.002*
(.002) (.003) (.003)
White 2.409 2.241 2.522
(.413) (.579) (.646)
Black .979** .903 1.319*
(.471) (.665) (.743)
Education 2.201*** 2.178** 2.370***
(.071) (.089) (.133)
Church attendance 2.103** 2.114** 2.084
(.045) (.059) (.074)
Other control variables
Number of children 2.002 .088 2.236
(.076) (.094) (.167)
Physical pleasure of marital sex 2.513*** 2.712*** 2.373*
(.128) (.179) (.204)
Health 2.277 2.325 2.347
(.172) (.226) (.293)
Thinksex .423*** .490*** .263***
(.127) (.175) (.202)
Guiltsex .182 .085 .321
(.161) (.233) (.246)
Exmarsex .613*** .426*** 1.087***
(.133) (.151) (.262)
Central City .168 .075 .139
(.281) (.388) (.438)
Wkalone .436*** .380* .589
(.166) (.203) (.372)
Wkdiscss 2.091 .075 2.084
(.202) (.320) (.354)
Wktouch 2.216 2.048 2.338
(.213) (.253) (.439)
Constant 24.426* 28.841** 23.441
(2.432) (3.936) (3.700)
22 log likelihood 610.656 350.217 233.577
x2 137.925*** 63.770*** 81.665***
Degree of freedom 19 18 18
Critical value of marital duration 23.036 17.600 37.833
Total 1,198 518 680
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
*p , .10. **p , .05. *** p , .01 (two-tailed tests).

for each gender. The results are reported in Table
2. In the estimated model for men, the coefficient
for marital duration was -.176, and the coefficient
for the quadratic term was .005; both were statis-
tically significant. This indicates that, as predicted
in Hypothesis 1, the likelihood of extramarital sex
varies nonmonotonically over the course of the
marriage, decreasing to a minimum at about the
18th wedding anniversary (the critical value 5
17.6), and thereafter increasing continuously. In
the estimated model for women, the coefficient for
marital duration was -.227, and the coefficient for
A Theory of Marital Sexual Life
FIGURE 1. ODDS OF EXTRAMARITAL SEX DURING
the quadratic term was .003; the coefficient for
marital duration was statistically significant,
whereas the coefficient for the quadratic term was
not. This indicates that, for women, a critical val-
ue of marital duration does not exist, and the like-
lihood of extramarital sex decreases with marital
duration at a constant rate. This result supports
Hypothesis 2. The hypothesized effects of marital
duration on extramarital sex for both genders are
shown by the two graphs presented in Figure 1.
Among the control variables, education had a
negative effect on extramarital sex for both gen-
ders. This effect was greater for women than for
men. Similarly, for both genders, individuals who
had a stronger sexual interest and who thought
that extramarital sex was not wrong were more
likely to engage in extramarital sex. Church atten-
dance had a negative effect on extramarital sex
for men but not for women. The opportunity of
working alone with customers, clients, or cowork-
ers had a positive effect on extramarital sex for
men only. It is worth noting that for both genders,
those who found their marital sex less physically
pleasurable were more likely to engage in extra-
marital sex; this effect was greater for men than
for women. This finding provides additional em-
pirical evidence supporting the argument that de-
clining physical pleasure of marital sex increases
the likelihood of extramarital sex. The other con-
trol variables had no significant effect on extra-
marital sex.
371
THE PAST 5 YEARS BY MARITAL DURATION AND BY GENDER
The analysis above shows that even though
some of the control variables proved statistically
significant, they in no way negated the direct im-
pact of marital duration on extramarital sex. I thus
arrived at following sociological findings: For
men, the relationship between the likelihood of
extramarital sex and marital duration is convex;
that is, the likelihood decreases to a minimum at
a point in the marriage, then increases thereafter.
For women, the likelihood of engaging in extra-
marital sex decreases with marital duration.
DISCUSSION
I develop two explanations of marital sex fre-
quency to account for the declining frequency of
marital sex. I discuss the relationship between
marital sex and extramarital sex. The theory de-
veloped here not only formalizes what is known
about marital sex frequency, but also generates
new predictions about the relationship between
marital duration and extramarital sex. Although
people engage in extramarital sex for various rea-
sons (e.g., an unhappy marriage, career advance-
ment, search for a new partner, etc.), this study
shows that marital duration is certainly an impor-
tant factor that affects the likelihood of extramar-
ital sex.
The analysis above improves our understand-
ing of marital sexual behavior in the following
three aspects:
372
1. It improves our understanding of marital
sex. Some researchers attribute the declining fre-
quency of marital sex with marital duration to fa-
tigue from work or to the fact that both husband
and wife work full-time outside the home and
therefore do not have the interest or time for mar-
ital sex (Olson & DeFrain, 1994). This effect is
referred to as the ‘‘DINS dilemma’’ (double in-
come, no sex). Now, in light of the findings of
this paper, this explanation becomes questionable.
Compared to marital sex, extramarital sex is much
more time consuming and costly in terms of
search and concealment. If couples who work full
time have no time for marital sex, they will have
even less time to engage in extramarital sex. How-
ever, the analysis above shows that the likelihood
of extramarital sex increases later in a couple’s
marriage, implying that the DINS explanation is
not supported by the analysis developed here.
Moreover, Call et al. (1995) empirically ex-
amine the effects of work status on the frequency
of marital sex. They report that the frequency of
marital sex declines with marital duration when
the couples’ work status is held constant, and that
working full-time actually has significant and pos-
itive effects on the frequency of marital sex. As a
result, they conclude that the DINS dilemma
might be a myth (Call et al., 1995). This finding
provides empirical evidence that falsifies the
DINS explanation. Thus this study and the one by
Call et al. rule out the DINS explanation.
2. In contrast to some of the previous research
that finds no significant gender differences in ex-
tramarital sex (Prins, Buunk, & VanYperen, 1993;
Treas & Giesen, 1996), this study shows that the
effect of marital duration on the likelihood of ex-
tramarital sex varies by gender. For women, the
likelihood of marital sex decreases with marital
duration, whereas for men the relationship be-
tween the two variables is convex.
3. Because ‘‘the reasons that motivate people
to engage in extramarital sex are only poorly un-
derstood at present’’ (Masters et al., 1992, p. 375),
this study contributes to the research on extra-
marital sex by identifying one condition under
which extramarital sex is likely to occur. Previous
research indicates that middle-aged men are more
likely to engage in extramarital sex because their
wives’ threat of sanctioning their husbands be-
comes less credible given both the wives’ heavy
investments in their marriage and their declining
prospects for remarriage (Brown, 1991). However,
for a middle-aged man, if the marginal utility of
marital sex is greater than that of extramarital sex,
Journal of Marriage and the Family
he is not likely to engage in extramarital sex, giv-
en the fact that his wife’s threat of sanctioning him
is less credible. For example, suppose marital sex
gives a middle-aged man 5 units of utility, where-
as extramarital sex gives him only 2 units. In this
case, he has no reason to engage in extramarital
sex because he can maximize his utility by getting
5 units from marital sex instead of 2 units from
extramarital sex. This example suggests that this
middle-aged man will have incentive to engage in
extramarital sex only if its marginal utility (say, 5
units) is larger than that of marital sex (say, 2
units), implying a necessary condition. It follows
that only under such circumstance does the cred-
ibility of sanction have a role to play. Thus the
theory developed here suggests that the diminish-
ing marginal utility of marital sex is a deeper
causal mechanism of extramarital sex than the
credibility of the threatened sanctions that will be
imposed on those who engage in extramarital sex.
Like any other theoretical implications, this one
needs to be examined empirically in the future.
This study on individual sexual behavior has
an important implication for the institution of mar-
riage. The declining marginal utility of marital sex
over the course of a marriage suggests that mar-
riage as a social institution for channeling sex for
married individuals, has a built-in defect that pos-
es a potential threat to marital stability. This po-
tential threat makes a marriage increasingly vul-
nerable to marital instability as a society moves
from a primordial society to a modern industrial
society. In a primordial society, the family rela-
tionship—the social capital provided by family
(Coleman, 1990)—was vitally important for in-
dividuals. The major functions of family included
economic production for subsistence, reproduc-
tion, socialization, job training, health care, enter-
tainment, and protection. Therefore, a loss in sat-
isfaction with marital sex could be well offset by
other benefits of a marriage; as a result, the mar-
riage could remain intact in spite of such a loss.
In a modern society, the social capital provided
by family has eroded considerably because mod-
ern industry has removed activities involving sub-
sistence and exchange from the home (Coleman,
1990; England & Farkas, 1986). The family is be-
coming less and less important as a source of
goods and services and is therefore losing its pow-
er and versatility. As a result, the loss in the qual-
ity of marital sex might not be offset as much as
it was in a primordial society. This implies that
more and more married men and women might
engage in extramarital sex for sexual pleasure. Be-
A Theory of Marital Sexual Life
cause extramarital sex is frequently cited by di-
vorced persons as a reason for marital dissolution
(South & Lloyd, 1995), an increase in the extra-
marital sex rate might cause the divorce rate to
rise.
A rational choice approach to sexual behavior
is new and relatively undeveloped. This paper has
explored one theory within this framework and
has shown that this theory has fairly good explan-
atory and predictive power. The paper does not
explain all the variations in marital sex and extra-
marital sex. Indeed, other factors, such as the type
of marriage, love, marital happiness, AIDS, dis-
tribution of marital power, sex ratio, and social
norms, also affect these two types of sexual prac-
tices. Future studies are needed to examine, the-
oretically as well as empirically, the effects of
these other factors on marital sexuality. For this
reason, this study must be viewed as a first step
in developing a more comprehensive sociological
theory of marital sexual life.
NOTE
This research was supported by the American Sociolog-
ical Association’s Fund for the Advancement of the Dis-
cipline Award sponsored by the American Sociological
Association and the National Science Foundation. Ad-
ditional support was provided by a faculty research fund
from Wagner College. I gratefully acknowledge the help
of my generous teachers and friends who commented
on drafts of this paper, including Paul Beaumont, Barry
Hirsch, Larry Hazelrigg, Karl-Dieter Opp, and Huayin
Wang. I appreciate help from James Cobbe, Yaohua Ji,
Frank Lopresti, Yangang Li, Larry Petersen, Edmund
Worthy, Robert Yaffee, and Xiaoyan Zhang. Special
thanks go to Barry Markovsky for his detailed com-
ments on an earlier draft, his support and advice, and
to the late James S. Coleman who kindly helped and
encouraged me to pursue this line of research.
REFERENCES
Becker, G. (1991). A treatise on the family. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Becker, G., Landes, E. M., & Michael, R. T. (1977). An
economic analysis of marital instability. Journal of
Political Economy, 85, 1141–1187.
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples.
New York: William Morrow.
Brown, E. (1991). Patterns of infidelity and their treat-
ment. New York: Brunner-Mazel.
Buss, D. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of
human mating. New York: Basic Books.
Call, V., Sprecher, S., & Schwartz, P. (1995). The inci-
dence and frequency of marital sex in a national sam-
ple. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 639–
652.
Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cam-
bridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press.
373
Davis, P. (1974). Contextual sex-saliency and sexual ac-
tivity: The relative effects of family and peer group
in the sexual socialization process. Journal of Mar-
riage and the Family, 36, 196–202.
Edwards, J., & Booth, A. (1976). Sexual behavior in
and out of marriage: An assessment of correlates.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 73–81.
Ehrneberg, R., & Smith, R. (1994). Modern labor eco-
nomics: Theory and public policy. New York: Harper
Collins.
England, P., & Farkas, G. (1986). Households, employ-
ment, and gender: A social, economic and demo-
graphic View. New York: Aldine.
Greenblat, C. (1983). The salience of sexuality in the
early years of marriage. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 45, 289–298.
Homans, G. (1967). The nature of social science. New
York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
James, W. H. (1981). The honeymoon effect on marital
coitus. The Journal of Sex Research, 17, 114–123.
Jasso, G. (1985). Marital coital frequency and the pas-
sage of time: Estimating the separate effects of spous-
es’ ages and marital duration, birth and marriage co-
horts, and period influences. American Sociological
Review, 50, 224–241.
Jasso, G. (1988). Principles of theoretical analysis. So-
ciological Theory, 6, 1–20.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W., & Martin, C. E. (1948).
Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W.
B. Saunders.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard,
P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female.
Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Lancaster, J. (1994). Human sexuality, life histories, and
evolutionary ecology. In A. Rossi, (Ed.), Sexuality
across the life course (pp. 39–62). Chicago: The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Laumann, E., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R., & Michaels,
S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sex-
ual practices in the United States. Chicago: The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Lipsey, R., & Courant, P. (1996). Microeconomics.
Harper Collins.
Liu, C. (1996). On the desirability and possibility of a
positive sociology. International Journal of Sociology
and Social Policy, 16, 103–136.
Markovsky, B. (1994). The structure of theories. In M.
Foschi & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Group process (pp. 3–
24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Masters, W., Johnson, V., & Kolodny, R. (1992). Human
sexuality. New York: Harper Collins.
Olson, D., & DeFrain, J. (1994). Marriage and the fam-
ily: Diversity and strengths. Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield.
Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evaluation
approach. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Posner, R. (1992). Sex and reason. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Prins, K., Buunk, B., & VanYperen, N. (1993). Equity,
normative disapproval and extramarital relationships.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10,
39–53.
Rubin, L. (1992). Sex and the coupled life. In A. S.
Skolnick & J. H. Skolnick (Eds.), Family in Transi-
tion (pp. 137–150). New York: Harper Collins.
South, S., & Lloyd, K. M. (1995). Spousal alternatives
374 Journal of Marriage and the Family

and marital dissolution. American Sociological Re- respectively. Suppose, for an actor, functions (A1) and (A2)
view, 60, 21–35. take the following forms:
Thompson, A. (1983). Extramarital sex: A review of the
research literature. The Journal of Sex Research, 19, max U(S0, S1, X0, X1) 5 S0a X0b 1 S1a X1b (A3)
1–22.
Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (1996, August). Sex, gender and st G1 5 aS0 1 bX0 5 C1 (A4)
rational choice: Determinants of infidelity among
married and cohabiting couples. Paper presented at G2 5 aS1 1 bX1 5 C2 (A5)
the annual meeting of the American Sociological As- G3 5 C1 1 C2 5 C (A6)
sociation, New York.
Trussell, J., & Westoff, C. (1980). Contraceptive prac- where, S0 . 0, S1 . 0, X0 . 0, X1 . 0, a . 0, b . 0, a
tice and trends in coital frequency. Family Planning 1 b 5 1. We interpret a and b as each unit of physical,
Perspectives, 12, 246–249. emotional, financial or time inputs required for obtaining
Udry, R., Deven, F., & Coleman, S. (1982). A cross- each unit of S0, S1, X0, and X1 (i.e., price or marginal cost).
national comparison of the relative influence of male Setting up the Lagrangian expression gives:
and female age on the frequency of marital inter-
course. Journal of Biosocial Science, 14, 1–6. L 5 Sa0 Xb0 1 Sa1 Xb1 1 l1(C1 – aS0 1 bX0)

1 l2(C1 – aS1 1 bX1)

THE APPENDIX
The problem can be formulated as: 1 l3(C – C1 – C2). (A7)

max U (S, X) (A1) Taking partial derivatives of (A7) with respect to S0, X0,
S1, X1, l1, l2, and l3, setting each derived equation to 0,
st G (S, X) 5 C (A2) and solving for S0 and S1, one obtains:

In the model, S denotes marital sex; X denotes the con- S*0 5 aC1 / a (A8)
sumption of another good or service produced in the fam-
ily; and C is a constant, denoting the total amount of re- S*1 5 aC2 / a. (A9)
sources at this actor’s disposal. S is decomposed to two
elements: S0 denoting past sexual experience with this ac- Since C 5 C1 1 C2 (A9) can be written as:
tor’s spouse at time t0 (the ‘‘stock’’ or cumulated marital
sex); and S1 denoting marital sex at time t1 (or current mar- S*1 5 a(C – C1) / a. (A10)
ital sex). Similarly, X can be decomposed to X0 and X1 that
denote the consumption of X at t0 and t1, respectively. Fi- Substituting (A8) into (A10) yields:
nally, C is decomposed to C1 and C2, representing the
amount of resources possessed by the actor at t0 and t1, S*1 5 aC / a – S*0. (A11)