Eine interessante Studie dazu, wie sich ein fehlender Vater auf die Sexualität der Tochter auswirkt:
An abundance of research demonstrates a robust association between father absence— or low-quality paternal involvement—and daughters’ accelerated sexual development, promiscuity, and sexual risk taking. Although recent natural experiments provide support for fathers playing a causal role in these outcomes, these effects have not been examined using a randomized experimental design to eliminate genetic and environmental confounds inherent in previous studies. We redressed this empirical gap by experimentally testing the effects of primed paternal disengagement cues on women’s sexual decision making. Across 5 experiments, reminders of paternal disengagement increased women’s activation of sexual thoughts (Experiment 1), sexual permissiveness (Experiments 2-4), and negativity toward condom use (Experiment 5). Moreover, these effects were specific to women’s sexual decision making, as paternal disengagement cues failed to influence women’s willingness to take nonsexual risks (Experiment 4) or men’s risky sexual attitudes (Experiment 5). These results provide the first true experimental evidence supporting a causal relationship between paternal disengagement and changes in women’s psychology that promote risky sexual behavior.
Das Gerücht, dass ein fehlender Vater dazu führt, dass eine Frau sexuell etwas lockerer ist bzw entsprechende Witze darüber gibt es schon lange.
when a girl has a messed up relationship with her dad. usually the fathers fault. either he left or is acting like a total bitch.
as a result the girl might be attracted to older men, or men with anger issues if her father was an angry man, and sometimes will stay in an abusive relationship because it would just feel like home. if he left, don’t ever blame yourself for him leaving. he just missed the best thing that he could have ever have.
Why might fathers play such an important role in shaping daughters’ sexual and reproductive development? To help answer this question, Draper and Harpending (1982) proposed a landmark theory linking paternal investment availability and girls’ sociosexual outcomes (i.e., paternal investment theory). According to paternal investment theory (PIT; Draper & Harpending, 1982; Ellis, 2004; Ellis et al., 2003, 2012), girls are uniquely sensitive to the availability and quality of investment they receive from their biological fathers because these cues provide important diagnostic information regarding the structure and character of the local mating system (e.g., Del Guidice & Belsky, 2011; Draper & Harpending, 1982; Ellis et al., 1999; 2003, 2012; James et al., 2012). In particular, father absence— or low-quality paternal care—is hypothesized to signal that long-term male investment in offspring production is unreliable or unnecessary in the current ecology. Daughters are reasoned to use these cues to adjust their reproductive strategies in ways that maximize fitness in such contexts. Specifically, father absence is expected to shift girls toward faster reproductive strategies characterized by precocious sexual development, earlier sexual activity, and younger age at first reproduction (Belsky et al., 1991; Draper & Harpending, 1982; Ellis et al., 1999; Figueredo et al., 2006). These changes are predicted to occur because women would not benefit from delaying reproductive activities to search for a high-investing mate in environments where male parental care is scarce.
PIT has served as the foundation for related evolutionary developmental theories on environmental stress, including psychosocial acceleration theory (Belsky et al., 1991). According to this theory, ecological conditions and family dynamics help shape children’s early attachment patterns and subsequent pubertal and reproductive timing to adaptively match individuals to their environments.
On this view, individuals growing up in harsh or unpredictable family environments reliably benefit from accelerating physical maturation and engaging in behaviors consistent with a fast life history strategy (i.e., early sex and reproduction, risky sexual behavior, investment in offspring quantity over quality). A shortened reproductive timetable is reasoned to be evolutionarily adaptive in such a context because it helps ensure that individuals will have an opportunity to reproduce before perishing if conditions remain harsh or worsen (e.g., Brumbach, Figueredo, & Ellis, 2009; Stearns, 1992).
Although psychosocial acceleration theory shares some of the core assumptions of PIT, these theories differ regarding the emphasis on fathers and their effects on daughters’ sociosexual outcomes. Specifically, PIT posits a unique and specific role for father presence/absence and paternal involvement in the regulation of daughters’ sexual development. This perspective stands in contrast to psychosocial acceleration theory, which is agnostic regarding any special role for fathers separate from more general effects of parenting or socioecological stress. Psychosocial acceleration theory also does not predict sex-differentiated developmental outcomes for sons versus daughters.
Numerous empirical investigations provide support for specific predictions borne from PIT. For example, research demonstrates that girls growing up in father-absent homes— or in homes characterized by low-quality paternal investment— experience accelerated pubertal development, initiate sexual intercourse and become pregnant earlier, 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 (Coley, Votruba-Drzal, & Schindler, 2009; Ellis & Essex, 2007; Ellis et al., 1999, 2003, 2012; James et al., 2012; Moffitt, Caspi, Belsky, & Silva, 1992; Quinlan, 2003; Rowe, 2000; Shavelsky, 2008). These outcomes are especially pronounced when the onset of the absence occurs at a relatively young age and the duration of absence is prolonged (e.g., D’Onofrio et al., 2006; Ellis et al., 2003; Moffitt et al., 1992; Quinlan, 2003; Vigil & Geary, 2006). Further, these effects extend above and beyond the effects of maternal care (e.g., Manlove, Wildsmith, Ikramullah, Terry-Humen, & Schelar, 2012; Regnerus & Luchies, 2006; Rink, Tricker, & Harvey, 2007), indicating that the role of parental involvement in daughters’ sociosexual development may be especially pronounced for fathers.
A growing body of research also supports the prediction that the influence of paternal investment is more pronounced for daughters and is specific to sociosexual risk (Ellis et al., 2012). For example, researchers have found that the effects of paternal investment on sexual risk taking is stronger for daughters than for sons (e.g., Coley et al., 2009; Davis & Friel, 2001; James et al., 2012). Others have found that paternal investment more strongly predicts daughters’ sexual risk taking than their nonsexual risk taking (e.g., violent behavior; Ellis et al., 2003). Taken together, previous findings suggest that both the quality and duration of investment received by girls from their biological father may provide important cues about the availability of male investment that daughters use to adjust their sexual and reproductive strategies throughout development.
As predicted, women who described a time their father was disengaged reported more permissive sexual attitudes (M 2.85, SD 1.84) relative to women who described a time their mother was disengaged (M 1.87, SD 1.16), F(1, 60) 6.03, p .017, d 0.64. In addition, women who described
paternal disengagement reported expecting to have a greater number of future sex partners (M 2.82, SD 2.24) relative to women in the maternal disengagement condition (M 1.79, SD 1.29), F(1, 60) 4.69, p .034, d 0.56. As expected, the analysis failed to reveal any between-subjects differences in participants’ general attitudes toward risk taking (p .54) or their reported ability to exert self-control in nonsexual domains (p .46).
Researchers frequently observe a robust association between father absence— or low-quality paternal investment—and daughters’ accelerated development, sexual promiscuity, and younger age at first reproduction (e.g., Ellis et al., 1999, 2003; James et al., 2012). According to PIT (e.g., Ellis et al., 2012), these associations result from father presence/absence providing important information about the local mating system, which plays a causal role in shaping daughters’ sexual strategies. Although PIT has been well supported by several correlational studies and natural experiments (e.g., Ellis et al., 2012; Tither & Ellis, 2008), hypotheses derived from PIT had not previously been tested experimentally. In a series of five experiments using multiple measures and comparison groups, priming paternal disengagement increased women’s sexualized thoughts (Experiment 1), sexual permissiveness and desired number of sex partners (Experiments 2– 4), and negativity toward condom use (Experiment 5). These results were not accounted for by negative affective responses to the primes (Experiments 2–5), generalized upset due to disappointment by any close other (Experiments 3–5), or a general risky shift in response to increased feelings of rejection or abandonment (Experiments 4). The effects of primed paternal disengagement on sexual risk were also found to be stronger for women than for men (Experiment 5). Taken together, the results of the current research provide the first experimental support for PIT by demonstrating a causal relationship between paternal disengagement cues and changes in women’s sexual decision making. Although we were unable to assess the long-term effects of these primed cues or their effects on actual sexual behaviors, the current findings elucidate some of the psychological shifts—such as increased activation of sexual thoughts and more permissive sexual attitudes—that may contribute to daughters’ increased sexual riskiness in response to father absence (e.g., Coley et al., 2009; Ellis et al., 2003, 2012; James et al., 2012). In so doing, this work provides a foundation for future experimental investigations into the effects of paternal disengagement on women’s beliefs about men, the local mating ecology, and behavioral interactions with prospective partners. Insight gained from this research may help inform interventions aimed at reducing some of the personal and financial costs associated with father
absence, including teen pregnancy and STI risk.