Abstract: This paper considers the role heroes play in the procreative realm, which has long been studied in terms of women’s roles. Drawing on recent work on infertile heroes, this paper considers the hero who seeks his own infertility. In Jessica Scott’s short story, “Anything for You” (2013), readers are (re)introduced to Sergeant First Class Shane Garrison, who has been recovering from injuries, and Jen, a breast cancer survivor. The two do not need to fall in love in the story because this has already happened in the novel, Because of You (2018 [2011])—the first novel in the Coming Home series—and so it focuses on a particular facet of their relationship, namely, Shane’s fear that Jen’s breast cancer will come back. As the description of the book reads, “as their loves grows, so does the risk of Jen’s life. And Shane must make the toughest decision any man can make to save the woman he loves.” The “toughest decision” that Shane must make is about their future together as a couple, and more particularly, vasectomy as a safeguard to protecting her. He fears that if she becomes pregnant, she will once more endure cancer. In this essay, I consider how masculinity and vasectomy intersect in the construction of heroic masculinity in the popular romance novel. Finally, I provide brief observations about popular romance novels in the post-Dobbs Era, recalling that Justice Thomas specifically set his sight on Griswold v. Connecticut, which afforded married couples the right to contraceptives, a case that informed the expansion of access to them. The goal of this paper is to think carefully and critically about the roles men, and more particularly heroes, play in the procreative realm.

Abstract: Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction are key predictors of wellbeing and can substantially contribute to quality of life. Assumptions are often made that relationship and sexual satisfaction are heightened for those in monogamous relationship configurations. This meta-analytic review challenges such assumptions by comparing the degree of relationship and sexual satisfaction of monogamous and non-monogamous individuals. A literature search using PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PsycEXTRA, CINAHL, LGBT+ Source, and SOCIndex, and an additional call for unpublished data, identified 35 suitable studies (N = 24,489). Meta-analytic results show null effects overall, suggesting that both relationships (k = 29; g = -0.05, 95% CIs [−0.20, 0.10], p = .496) and sex (k = 17; g = 0.06, 95% CIs [−0.07, 0.18], p = .393) are equally satisfactory for monogamous and non-monogamous individuals. Sub-group analyses revealed that these overall effects did not vary according to sampling characteristics (e.g. LGBTQ+ vs. heterosexual samples), non-monogamy agreement types (e.g. open vs. polyamorous vs. monogamish), or relationship satisfaction dimension (e.g. trust vs. commitment vs. intimacy). There was no evidence of publication bias. Methodological challenges and directions for future research are discussed.

Abstract: Orgasm is considered by many to be an essential part of women’s ideal sexual experiences. As a result, sexual liberation narratives have often advocated for the prioritization of women’s orgasms – particularly during heterosex – framing them as a central indicator of “good,” healthy, liberated sex. However, scholars have increasingly critiqued these narratives, arguing that they result in an orgasm imperative that has negatively impacted women’s sexual lives. Perspectives that promote the prioritization of women’s orgasm and those that warn against the negative repercussions strive for the same thing – to draw attention to women’s sexuality in ways that will lead to more pleasurable, enjoyable, and equitable sex for women overall. Yet, together, they offer contradictory messages about the role that women’s orgasms can or should play in women’s sexual liberation. For example, one could argue that it perhaps makes sense to prioritize women’s orgasms given that they often are highly pleasurable for women, center a unique form of embodied pleasure, and offer a supposedly clear objective for women and their men partners. On the other hand, such narratives frame women’s orgasm absence as abnormal, concede to men’s sexuality in problematic ways, and constrain more comprehensive possibilities for women’s sexual pleasure. In this critical feminist review, I offer a summative outline of these and other contradictions, focusing on how narratives prioritizing women’s orgasms can have simultaneous benefits and negative repercussions when it comes to (1) women’s sexual pleasure, (2) the medicalization/pathologization of women’s orgasms, and (3) heterosex norms.