Download Double Standard

Double Standard
Charlene L. Muehlenhard,
John K. Sakaluk
and
Kate M. Esterline
University of Kansas
Published in P. Whelehan & A. Bolin (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Human
Sexuality (Vol. 1, pp. 309-311).
Abstract
A sexual double standard (SDS) is the application of different standards to the sexual behaviors
of different groups or individuals, most often women and men. Sexual double standards (SDSs)
take many forms, varying in the individuals and sexual behaviors being evaluated, the context of
these behaviors, and the types of evaluations being made. Research findings about SDSs depend
on who is studied, how SDSs are defined, and how acceptance of SDSs is measured. Acceptance
of SDSs varies over time and across countries and subcultures.
Key Words: double standard; gender; gender role; sexual double standard
SEE ALSO: Gender; Gender Identity and Role; Reiss, Ira.
Double Standard
The term double standard broadly refers to the application of different standards to different
groups or individuals. A sexual double standard (SDS) refers to the application of different
standards to the sexual behaviors of different groups or individuals, most often women and men.
Variations in Sexual Double Standards
Sexual double standards (SDSs) take many forms, varying along several dimensions.
Target groups: SDSs usually involve different standards for women and men, but they
could refer to different standards for other groups or individuals (e.g., adolescents versus adults;
oneself versus others).
Target behaviors: Different standards could be applied to numerous sexual behaviors
(e.g., engaging in sexual intercourse; having numerous partners; initiating sex; engaging in
uncommon sexual behaviors, such as threesomes; masturbating; lacking sexual experience).
Context: SDSs often refer to the context in which the target behaviors occur (e.g., level of
commitment or affection between partners; level of intoxication of those involved).
Types of evaluations: SDSs can involve various types of evaluations (e.g., how
acceptable the target behavior is; how responsible versus irresponsible the target individuals are;
how desirable the target individual would be as a mate; how to label men and women engaging
in the same sexual behavior, such as “studs” or “sluts”).
Historical and Cultural Origins of Sexual Double Standards
Historians and anthropologists have speculated about the historical origins of SDSs. For
example, Lerner (1986:49) presented evidence that historically, when societies shifted from
hunting/gathering to agricultural, children became an economic asset, which resulted in the
commodification and control of women’s sexuality and childbearing. Lerner argued that for men,
socioeconomic class was—and still is—based on ownership of the means of production, but for
women, class depended on their sexual ties with a man. Based on their sexual behavior, women
were categorized as “respectable” or “not respectable,” and women who engaged in unacceptable
sexual behavior could lose their social status. Women’s sexual subordination was
institutionalized in many ways: through laws, through economic and political discrimination that
made women dependent on men, and through sexual standards that bestowed privileges on
women who conformed to these standards but that limited women’s freedom (Lerner 1986:9,
217).
In a recent meta-analysis, Petersen and Hyde (2010) found evidence of links between
gender inequality and SDSs in contemporary societies. For each of 87 countries they obtained
data on gender inequality (as measured by the United Nations, based on economic and political
inequality), and gender differences in sexual behavior. They found that “nations with larger
gender differences in power had larger gender differences in sexual behaviors than more
egalitarian nations,” and explained that “countries with large gender inequality often hold a
sexual double standard by encouraging liberal sexual behaviors for men but discouraging the
same behaviors for women” (Petersen and Hyde 2010: 35).
Currently, different cultures and subcultures vary widely in the extent to which they
accept SDSs. In some cultures, negative evaluations of women’s alleged sexual improprieties are
severe and may lead to “honor killings” (Chesler 2010). In other cultures, there is much greater
equality between women and men—and much less acceptance of SDSs.
Early Research on Sexual Double Standards
Ira Reiss (1967) conducted the first study of SDSs in the United States using a national
probability sample. He asked respondents about the acceptability of men’s and women’s
engaging in premarital intercourse depending on their level of commitment or affection. He
classified 4% of this sample as endorsing what he called an orthodox double standard (accepting
premarital intercourse for men but not for women) and 5% as endorsing a transitional double
standard (accepting premarital intercourse for men with or without affection but for women only
in an affectionate relationship). In addition, he classified 15% as endorsing a nonequalitarian
abstinence standard (regarding premarital intercourse as unacceptable for anyone, but regarding
premarital kissing or petting without affection as acceptable for men but not women). He
classified some respondents as endorsing what he called a reverse double standard (3%) or a
reverse nonequalitarian standard (7%), with more permissive standards for women than for
men.
Since Reiss’s groundbreaking research, many researchers have studied SDSs. Although
some researchers concluded that SDSs are waning in Euro-American cultures, a literature
review suggested that double standards still exist (Crawford and Popp 2003). Research findings
vary depending on the individuals studied, the way researchers define the SDS, and other
methodological choices.
Issues in Measuring Sexual Double Standards
There are many ways to measure acceptance of SDSs. To assess SDS acceptance within a group,
researchers sometimes ask some individuals from that group to evaluate men’s behavior and
others to evaluate women’s behavior. If respondents evaluating men answer differently than
those evaluating women, this is evidence that group members, on average, accept a double
standard, but it would be unclear which individuals accept it.
To assess which individuals accept a double standard, researchers need to obtain each
respondent’s evaluations of women’s and men’s sexual behaviors. To do this, researchers often
ask each respondent parallel questions about women and men. For example, the Sexual Double
Standard Scale asks how much respondents agree with statements such as: “A woman who
initiates sex is too aggressive,” and “A man who initiates sex is too aggressive” (Muehlenhard
and Quackenbush 2011). Respondents who answer differently for women and men will be
endorsing a double standard. However, these parallel questions might prompt some respondents
to feign egalitarian responses to appear socially desirable.
Sakaluk and Milhausen (2012) assessed acceptance of the SDS using an implicit
association test (IAT), a computerized reaction-time measure that compares how quickly
respondents could associate female and male stimuli with positive or negative sexually
evaluative words. Because IATs rely on reaction times, they are less susceptible to socially
desirable responding than self-report measures.
Some researchers draw inferences about the SDS without asking about it directly. For
example, in a population with equal numbers of women and men, women’s and men’s numbers
of partners in heterosexual activity should be equal. If men report having had more partners than
women, this suggests that men regard having multiple partners as more desirable than women do.
Other researchers have studied SDSs using qualitative approaches (e.g., ethnographic
observations, discourse analysis, and focus groups). For example, observations of middle-school
students revealed that they applied negative labels to girls, but not boys, who expressed interest
in sexuality (Crawford and Popp 2003).
References
Chesler, Phyllis 2010 Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings. Middle East Quarterly, 17:3−11.
Crawford, Mary, and Danielle Popp 2003 Sexual Double Standards: A Review and
Methodological Critique of Two Decades of Research. Journal of Sex Research, 40:13−26.
Lerner, Gerda 1986 The Creation of Patriarchy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Muehlenhard, Charlene L., and Debra M. Quackenbush 2011 The Sexual Double Standard Scale.
In Terri D. Fisher, Clive M. Davis, William L. Yarber, and Sandra L. Davis, eds., Handbook of
Sexuality-Related Measures, 3rd ed., pp. 199−200. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Petersen, Jennifer L., and Janet S. Hyde 2010 A Meta-Analytic Review of Research on Gender
Differences in Sexuality, 1993−2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136:21−38.
Reiss, Ira L. 1967 The Social Context of Premarital Sexual Permissiveness. New York, NY:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Sakaluk, John K., and Robin R. Milhausen 2012 Factors Influencing University Students’
Explicit and Implicit Sexual Double Standards. Journal of Sex Research, 49:464−476.
Further Reading
Tolman, Deborah L. 2005 Dilemmas of Desire: Teenage Girls Talk about Sexuality. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.