The Sexual Double Standard toward Non-Heterosexual Populations: Evaluations of Sexually Active Gay Men and Lesbian Women
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design
2.2. Participants
2.3. Materials
2.3.1. Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) [29]
2.3.2. Sexual Double Standard
2.4. Procedure
3. Results
3.1. Analysis Strategy
3.2. Likability
3.3. Morality
3.4. Partner/Friend Desirability
3.5. Success
3.6. Intelligence
3.7. Summary
4. Discussion
Limitations and Future Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
- Gay man with high partner number:
- John is a 26 year old gay man. He lives in New York and recently received his degree in business. John wakes up at 5:30 every morning so he can run a mile before going to work. At night, he likes to go out and party with friends. He is a friendly person and gets along with everyone. In his lifetime, he has had 19 different male sexual partners.
- Gay man with typical partner number:
- John is a 26 year old gay man. He lives in New York and recently received his degree in business. John wakes up at 5:30 every morning so he can run a mile before going to work. At night, he likes to go out and party with friends. He is a friendly person and gets along with everyone. In his lifetime, he has had 7 different male sexual partners.
- Lesbian woman with high partner number:
- Joanna is a 26 year old lesbian woman. She lives in New York and recently received her degree in business. Joanna wakes up at 5:30 every morning so she can run a mile before going to work. At night, she likes to go out and party with friends. She is a friendly person and gets along with everyone. In her lifetime, she has had 19 different female sexual partners.
- Lesbian woman with typical partner number:
- Joanna is a 26 year old lesbian woman. She lives in New York and recently received her degree in business. Joanna wakes up at 5:30 every morning so she can run a mile before going to work. At night, she likes to go out and party with friends. She is a friendly person and gets along with everyone. In her lifetime, she has had 7 different female sexual partners.
Appendix B
References
- Marks, M.J.; Fraley, R.C. The Sexual Double Standard: Fact or Fiction? Sex Roles 2005, 52, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumeister, R.F.; Reynolds, T.; Winegard, B.; Vohs, K.D. Competing for Love: Applying Sexual Economics Theory to Mating Contests. J. Econ. Psychol. 2017, 63, 230–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumeister, R.F.; Twenge, J.M. Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2002, 6, 166–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- England, P.; Bearak, J. The Sexual Double Standard and Gender Differences in Attitudes toward Casual Sex among U.S. Univ. Students. Demogr. Res. 2014, 30, 1327–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marks, M.J.; Young, T.M.; Zaikman, Y. The Sexual Double Standard in the Real World. Soc. Psychol. 2019, 50, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coleman, K. Introduction to Gender Studies; LibreTexts: Davis, CA, USA, 2023; pp. 1–116. [Google Scholar]
- Luberti, F.R.; Blake, K.R.; Brooks, R.C. Evolutionary Ecological Insights into the Suppression of Female Sexuality. Curr. Res. Ecol. Soc. Psychol. 2023, 5, 100167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogle, K.A. Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus; New York University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Croft, A.; Atkinson, C.; May, A.M. Promoting Gender Equality by Supporting Men’s Emotional Flexibility. Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci. 2021, 8, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellemers, N. Gender Stereotypes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2018, 69, 275–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fausto-Sterling, A. Gender/Sex, Sexual Orientation, and Identity Are in the Body: How Did They Get There? J. Sex Res. 2019, 56, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kimmel, M.S. Manhood in America: A Cultural History; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Pleck, J.H.; Sonenstein, F.L.; Ku, L.C. Masculinity ideology and its correlates. In Gender Issues in Contemporary Society; Oskamp, S., Costanzo, M., Eds.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1993; pp. 85–110. [Google Scholar]
- Rubin, G. Culture, Society and Sexuality: A Reader; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2002; pp. 143–178. [Google Scholar]
- Kite, M.E.; Whitley, B.E.; Buxton, K.; Ballas, H. Gender Differences in Anti-Gay Prejudice: Evidence for Stability and Change. Sex Roles 2021, 85, 721–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LaMar, L.; Kite, M. Sex Differences in Attitudes toward Gay Men and Lesbians: A Multidimensional Perspective. J. Sex Res. 1998, 35, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rice, D.R.; Hudson, S.T.J.; Noll, N.E. Gay = STIs? Exploring Gay and Lesbian Sexual Health Stereotypes and Their Implications for Prejudice and Discrimination. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2021, 52, 326–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kite, M.E.; Bryant-Lees, K.B. Historical and Contemporary Attitudes toward Homosexuality. Teach. Psychol. 2016, 43, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowalski, B.M.; Scheitle, C.P. Sexual Identity and Attitudes about Gender Roles. Sex. Cult. 2019, 24, 671–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spivey, L.A.; Huebner, D.M.; Diamond, L.M. Parent Responses to Childhood Gender Nonconformity: Effects of Parent and Child Characteristics. Psychol. Sex. Orientat. Gend. Divers. 2018, 5, 360–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Testa, R.J.; Habarth, J.; Peta, J.; Balsam, K.; Bockting, W. Development of the Gender Minority Stress and Resilience Measure. Psychol. Sex. Orientat. Gend. Divers. 2015, 2, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bayrakdar, S.; King, A. LGBT Discrimination, Harassment and Violence in Germany, Portugal and the UK: A Quantitative Comparative Approach. Curr. Sociol. 2021, 71, 001139212110392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandfort, T.G.M.; Bos, H.M.W.; Fu, T.-C.; Herbenick, D.; Dodge, B. Gender Expression and Its Correlates in a Nationally Representative Sample of the U.S. Adult Population: Findings from the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. J. Sex Res. 2020, 58, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin-Storey, A.; August, E.G. Harassment due to Gender Nonconformity Mediates the Association between Sexual Minority Identity and Depressive Symptoms. J. Sex Res. 2015, 53, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reeser, T.W. Masculinities in Theory: An Introduction; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Fink, B.; Brewer, G.; Fehl, K.; Neave, N. Instrumentality and Lifetime Number of Sexual Partners. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2007, 43, 747–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurpisz, J.; Mak, M.; Lew-Starowicz, M.; Nowosielski, K.; Bieńkowski, P.; Kowalczyk, R.; Misiak, B.; Frydecka, D.; Samochowiec, J. Personality Traits, Gender Roles and Sexual Behaviours of Young Adult Males. Ann. Gen. Psychiatry 2016, 15, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bettinsoli, M.L.; Suppes, A.; Napier, J.L. Predictors of Attitudes toward Gay Men and Lesbian Women in 23 Countries. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2019, 11, 194855061988778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spence, J.T.; Helmreich, R.L. Masculinity [And] Femininity: Their Psychological Dimensions, Correlates, [And] Antecedents; University Of Texas Press: Austin, TX, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Pinsof, D.; Haselton, M.G. The Effect of the Promiscuity Stereotype on Opposition to Gay Rights. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0178534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Farina, L. Lesbian History and Erotic Reading. In The Lesbian Premodern; Giffney, N., Sauer, M., Watt, D., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan US: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 49–60. [Google Scholar]
- Saucier, D.A.; Stanford, A.J.; Miller, S.S.; Martens, A.L.; Miller, A.K.; Jones, T.L.; McManus, J.L.; Burns, M.D. Masculine Honor Beliefs: Measurement and Correlates. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 94, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witz, A.; Marshall, B.L. The Quality of Manhood: Masculinity and Embodiment in the Sociological Tradition. Sociol. Rev. 2003, 51, 339–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Messerschmidt, J.W. Becoming “Real Men”. Men Masculinities 2000, 2, 286–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byrne, D.E. The Attraction Paradigm; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Marks, M.J.; Fraley, R.C. Confirmation Bias and the Sexual Double Standard. Sex Roles 2006, 52, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nystedt, T.; Rosvall, M.; Lindström, M. Sexual Orientation, Suicide Ideation and Suicide Attempt: A Population-Based Study. Psychiatry Res. 2019, 275, 359–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pompili, M.; Lester, D.; Forte, A.; Seretti, M.E.; Erbuto, D.; Lamis, D.A.; Amore, M.; Girardi, P. Bisexuality and Suicide: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature. J. Sex. Med. 2014, 11, 1903–1913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kufskie, K.L. Family Functioning and Parental Divorce as Predictors of Attachment Styles and Sexual Attitudes in College Students. Master’s Thesis, University of Missouri-Saint Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA, 2009; pp. 1–175. [Google Scholar]
- Marks, M.J.; Fraley, R. The Impact of Social Interaction on the Sexual Double Standard. Soc. Influ. 2007, 2, 29–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tibubos, A.N.; Otten, D.; Beutel, M.E.; Brahler, E. Validation of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire-8: Gender expression and mental distress in the German population in 2006 and 2018. Int. J. Public Health 2022, 67, 1604510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kallitsounaki, A.; Williams, D. Mentalising moderates the link between autism traits and current gender dysphoric features in primarily non-autistic, cisgender individuals. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2020, 50, 4148–4157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Predictor | B | β | p | 95% CI B | ΔR2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step 1 | 0.05 | ||||
Participant Gender | 0.492 | 0.168 | 0.036 | [0.032, 0.952] | |
Participant Age | 0.008 | 0.031 | 0.700 | [−0.035, 0.052] | |
Target Sex | −0.029 | −0.011 | 0.894 | [−0.462, 0.404] | |
Target Partners | −0.364 | −0.132 | 0.099 | [−0.798, 0.070] | |
Step 2 | 0.02 | ||||
Target Sex X Partners | 0.026 | 0.008 | 0.955 | [−0.872, 0.923] | |
Target Sex X Femininity | 0.192 | 0.094 | 0.274 | [−0.154, 0.538] | |
Target Sex X Masculinity | 0.097 | 0.046 | 0.601 | [−0.267, 0.461] | |
Target Partners X Fem. | 0.071 | 0.036 | 0.680 | [−0.267, 0.408] | |
Target Partners X Masc. | −0.162 | −0.092 | 0.303 | [−0.472, 0.148] | |
Step 3 | 0.03 | ||||
Target Sex X Part. X Fem. | 0.004 | 0.399 | 0.993 | [−0.785, 0.792] | |
Target Sex X Part. X Masc. | 0.795 | 0.252 | 0.040 | [0.037, 1.55] | |
Total R2 | 0.10 |
Predictor | B | β | p | 95% CI B | ΔR2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step 1 | 0.10 | ||||
Participant Gender | 0.654 | 0.252 | 0.001 | [0.256, 1.05] | |
Participant Age | −0.013 | −0.054 | 0.485 | [−0.051, 0.024] | |
Target Sex | 0.053 | 0.022 | 0.779 | [−0.322, 0.428] | |
Target Partners | −0.373 | −0.152 | 0.052 | [−0.749, 0.003] | |
Step 2 | 0.03 | ||||
Target Sex X Partners | −0.643 | −0.231 | 0.100 | [−1.42, 0.131] | |
Target Sex X Femininity | 0.014 | 0.008 | 0.926 | [−0.285, 0.313] | |
Target Sex X Masculinity | 0.037 | 0.019 | 0.0.818 | [−0.278, 0.351] | |
Target Partners X Fem. | 0.111 | 0.063 | 0.750 | [−0.278, 0.351] | |
Target Partners X Masc. | −0.140 | −0.089 | 0.302 | [−0.408, 0.128] | |
Step 3 | 0.01 | ||||
Target Sex X Part. X Fem. | −0.241 | −0.077 | 0.489 | [−0.929, 0.446] | |
Target Sex X Part. X Masc. | 0.323 | 0.115 | 0.336 | [−0.338, 0.983] | |
Total R2 | 0.13 |
Predictor | B | β | p | 95% CI B | ΔR2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step 1 | 0.10 | ||||
Participant Gender | 0.566 | 0.169 | 0.031 | [0.052, 1.08] | |
Participant Age | −0.002 | −0.005 | 0.948 | [−0.050, 0.047] | |
Target Sex | 0.110 | 0.035 | 0.655 | [−0.374, 0.593] | |
Target Partners | −0.755 | −0.240 | 0.002 | [−1.24, −0.271] | |
Step 2 | 0.03 | ||||
Target Sex X Partners | −0.152 | −0.042 | 0.762 | [−1.14, 0.842] | |
Target Sex X Femininity | 0.228 | 0.097 | 0.241 | [−0.155, 0.612] | |
Target Sex X Masculinity | −0.049 | −0.020 | 0.811 | [−0.452, 0.354] | |
Target Partners X Fem. | 0.210 | 0.092 | 0.270 | [−0.164, 0.583] | |
Target Partners X Masc. | −0.197 | −0.097 | 0.260 | [−0.540, 0.147] | |
Step 3 | 0.01 | ||||
Target Sex X Part. X Fem. | −0.608 | −0.151 | 0.174 | [−1.49, 0.272] | |
Target Sex X Part. X Masc. | 0.186 | 0.052 | 0.664 | [−0.660, 1.03] | |
Total R2 | 0.14 |
Predictor | B | β | p | 95% CI B | ΔR2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step 1 | 0.08 | ||||
Participant Gender | 0.386 | 0.151 | 0.057 | [−0.012, 0.784] | |
Participant Age | −0.019 | −0.079 | 0.316 | [−0.056, 0.018] | |
Target Sex | 0.369 | 0.153 | 0.053 | [−0.005, 0.743] | |
Target Partners | −0.332 | −0.138 | 0.082 | [−0.707, 0.043] | |
Step 2 | 0.04 | ||||
Target Sex X Partners | 0.024 | 0.009 | 0.951 | [−0.743, 0.790] | |
Target Sex X Femininity | 0.209 | 0.117 | 0.165 | [−0.087, 0.504] | |
Target Sex X Masculinity | 0.114 | 0.061 | 0.471 | [−0.197, 0.425] | |
Target Partners X Fem. | 0.138 | 0.079 | 0.346 | [−0.150, 0.426] | |
Target Partners X Masc. | −0.211 | −0.136 | 0.118 | [−0.476, 0.054] | |
Step 3 | 0.01 | ||||
Target Sex X Part. X Fem. | −0.234 | −0.076 | 0.497 | [−0.915, 0.447] | |
Target Sex X Part. X Masc. | 0.245 | 0.089 | 0.461 | [−0.410, 0.899] | |
Total R2 | 0.12 |
Predictor | B | β | p | 95% CI B | ΔR2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step 1 | 0.08 | ||||
Participant Gender | 0.232 | 0.107 | 0.173 | [−0.103, 0.568] | |
Participant Age | 0.000 | −0.001 | 0.990 | [−0.023, 0.031] | |
Target Sex | 0.272 | 0.133 | 0.091 | [−0.044, 0.588] | |
Target Partners | −0.422 | −0.207 | 0.009 | [−0.739, −0.106] | |
Step 2 | 0.02 | ||||
Target Sex X Partners | 0.011 | 0.005 | 0.973 | [−0.645, 0.667] | |
Target Sex X Femininity | 0.091 | 0.060 | 0.478 | [−0.162, 0.344] | |
Target Sex X Masculinity | 0.068 | 0.044 | 0.612 | [−0.198, 0.334] | |
Target Partners X Fem. | 0.029 | 0.020 | 0.817 | [−0.218, 0.275] | |
Target Partners X Masc. | −0.149 | −0.113 | 0.197 | [−0.375, 0.078] | |
Step 3 | 0.01 | ||||
Target Sex X Part. X Fem. | −0.314 | −0.120 | 0.288 | [−0.896, 0.268] | |
Target Sex X Part. X Masc. | 0.013 | 0.006 | 0.963 | [−0.547, 0.573] | |
Total R2 | 0.10 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Marks, M.; Padgett, S. The Sexual Double Standard toward Non-Heterosexual Populations: Evaluations of Sexually Active Gay Men and Lesbian Women. Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 706. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14080706
Marks M, Padgett S. The Sexual Double Standard toward Non-Heterosexual Populations: Evaluations of Sexually Active Gay Men and Lesbian Women. Behavioral Sciences. 2024; 14(8):706. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14080706
Chicago/Turabian StyleMarks, Michael, and Serina Padgett. 2024. "The Sexual Double Standard toward Non-Heterosexual Populations: Evaluations of Sexually Active Gay Men and Lesbian Women" Behavioral Sciences 14, no. 8: 706. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14080706