Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Common vs. Uncommon Sexual Acts: Evidence for the Sexual Double Standard

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The lack of consistent evidence for the sexual double standard may be related to the rather benign nature of the heterosexual behaviors often studied (e.g., casual sex, premarital sex). College students from the southwestern U.S. evaluated targets who engaged in mixed-gender threesomes (where three people engage in simultaneous sexual acts; Study 1: N = 120) and targets in a monogamous sexual relationship (Study 2: N = 105). Evidence for the sexual double standard was found via effects of targets’ gender among those who engaged in threesomes. Targets who had monogamous sex were evaluated more favorably than the targets who engaged in threesomes. We suggest that the sexual double standard may still exist for uncommon sexual behaviors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice. New York, NY: Perseus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anthill, J. K., & Russell, G. (1982). The factor structure of the Bem sex-role inventory: Method and sample comparisons. Australian Journal of Psychology, 34, 183–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aubrey, J. S. (2004). Sex and punishment: an examination of sexual consequences and the sexual double standard in teen programming. Sex Roles, 50, 505–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2002). Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6, 166–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review, 90, 105–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N. R., & Sinclair, R. C. (1999). Estimating lifetime sexual partners: men and women do it differently. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 292–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browning, J. R., Hatfield, E., Kessler, D., & Levine, T. (2000). Sexual motives, gender, and sexual behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 135–153.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Browning, J. R., Kessler, D., Hatfield, E., & Choo, P. (1999). Power, gender, and sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 342–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd Ed). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 13–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Farky, F. H., & Muellerms, C. B. (1978). Arousal, personality, and assortative mating in marriage: Generalizability and cross-cultural factors. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 4, 50–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T. D. (2007). Sex of experimenter and social norm effects on reports of sexual behavior in young men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 89–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gentry, M. (1998). The sexual double standard: The influence of number of relationships and level of sexual activity on judgments of women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 505–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallup, G. G., Jr, Burch, R. L., & Mitchell, T. J. B. (2006). Semen displacement as a sperm competition strategy: Multiple mating, self-semen displacement, and timing of in-pair copulations. Human Nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.), 17, 253–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, S., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2003). Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: Shoulder to wait ratios and waist to hip ratios. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 351–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, S. M., Harrison, M. A., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2004). Sex differences in mating strategies: Mate guarding, infidelity, and multiple concurrent sex partners. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender, 6, 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynie, M., & Lyndon, J. E. (1995). Women’s perceptions of female contraceptive behavior. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 563–581.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, A. P., & Williams, J. D. (1985). Effects of premarital sexual standards and behavior on dating and marriage desirability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 1059–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenks, R. J. (1998). Swinging: A review of the literature. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27, 507–521.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jonason, P. K. (2007). A mediation hypothesis to account for the sex difference in reported number of sexual partners: An intrasexual competition approach. International Journal of Sexual Health, 19, 41–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonason, P. K., & Fisher, T. D. (2008) The power of prestige: why young men report having more sex partners than young women. Sex Roles, in press.

  • Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexualities: Sexual practice in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louderback, L. A., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1997). Perceived erotic value of homosexuality and sex-role attitudes as mediators of sex differences in heterosexual college students’ attitudes toward lesbian and gay men. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 175–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mark, M. M., & Miller, M. L. (1986). The effects of sexual permissiveness, target gender, subject gender, and attitude toward women on social perception: In search of the double standard. Sex Roles, 15, 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52, 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2007). The impact of social interaction on the sexual double standard. Social Influence, 2, 29–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (2001). Reconceptualizing the sexual double standard. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 13, 63–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, I. L. (1960). Premarital sexual standards in America. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, I. L. (1967). The social context of premarital sexual permissiveness. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, S. A., & Reinisch, J. M. (1999). Would you say you had sex if…? Journal of the American Medical Association, 28, 275–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S. (1989). Premarital sexual standards for different categories of individuals. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 232–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S., & Hatfield, E. (1996). Premarital sexual standards among U.S. college students: Comparison with Russian and Japanese students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25, 261–288.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S., McKinney, K., & Orbuch, T. L. (1991). The effect of current sexual behavior on friendship, dating, and marriage desirability. Journal of Sex Research, 28, 387–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher, S., Regan, P. C., McKinney, K., Maxwell, K., & Wazienski, R. (1997). Preferred level of sexual experience in a date or mate: The merger of two methodologies. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 327–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, B. E., Jr, Wiederman, M. W., & Wryobeck, J. M. (1999). Correlates of heterosexual men’s eroticization of lesbianism. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 11, 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiederman, M. W., & Whitely, B. E., Jr. (2002). Handbook for conducting research on human sexuality. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, S. (1997). Age and gender in relation to body attitudes: Is there a double standard of aging? Psychology of Women, 21, 549–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Pamela Izzo, Laura Madson, Danielle Popp, and Gregory Webster for help in preparing this manuscript. Thanks also to Mary Gourley for help collecting data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychology Department, New Mexico State University, P. O. Box 30001/MSC 3452, Las Cruces, NM, 88003, USA

    Peter K. Jonason & Michael J. Marks

Authors
  1. Peter K. Jonason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Marks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter K. Jonason.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jonason, P.K., Marks, M.J. Common vs. Uncommon Sexual Acts: Evidence for the Sexual Double Standard. Sex Roles 60, 357–365 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9542-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9542-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation