Sex Roles

, Volume 79, Issue 11–12, pp 699–714 | Cite as

Agents, Virgins, Sluts, and Losers: The Sexual Typecasting of Young Heterosexual Women

  • Laina Y. Bay-ChengEmail author
  • Anne E. Bruns
  • Eugene Maguin
Original Article


In a 2015 contribution to Sex Roles’s Feminist Forum, Bay-Cheng argued that contemporary social evaluations of young women hinge not only on their apparent adherence to gendered moralist norms of sexual activity, but also on their performance of a neoliberal script of sexual agency. We used a mixed method approach to test this proposal, specifically its alignment with the evaluative dimensions of the Stereotype Content Model (SCM; Fiske 2013). We asked 186 U.S. adults (aged 19–64) to imagine four “sexual types” of young heterosexual women: sexually active and agentic Agents; sexually abstinent and agentic Virgins; sexually active but not agentic Sluts; and Losers, who are sexually abstinent and not agentic. Qualitative analysis of open-ended responses and quantitative analysis of personality attribute ratings indicated that participants evaluated the types differently and in ways that often mapped onto the SCM. We also conducted post-hoc inductive thematic analysis of the qualitative data, finding meaningful differences among participants’ impressions of the types in relation to their sociability, femininity, and vulnerability. Alongside signs of progress toward the affirmation of young women’s sexual agency, we also found that social evaluations of young women continue to hinge on their sexuality and traditionally gendered norms.


Young women Sexual agency Gender norms Sexual stereotypes 



The authors thank Julie M. Maier for her assistance with analyses. The first author thanks Ella Ben Hagai for the opportunity to present a version of this work in September 2017 as part of Bennington College’s Society, Culture, & Thought colloquium.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This research was approved by the University at Buffalo’s Institutional Review Board. This is original work that has not been previously published and is not under consideration at another journal. This research was not supported through external funds. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11199_2018_907_MOESM1_ESM.docx (58 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 57 kb)


  1. Armstrong, E. A., Hamilton, L. T., Armstrong, E. M., & Seeley, J. L. (2014). “Good girls”: Gender, social class, and slut discourse on campus. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77, 100–122. Scholar
  2. Attwood, F. (2007). Sluts and riot Grrrls: Female identity and sexual agency. Journal of Gender Studies, 16, 233–247. Scholar
  3. Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2015a). The agency line: A neoliberal metric for appraising young women’s sexuality. Sex Roles, 73, 279–291. Scholar
  4. Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2015b). Living in metaphors, trapped in a matrix: The ramifications of neoliberal ideology for young women's sexuality. Sex Roles, 73, 332–339. Scholar
  5. Bay-Cheng, L. Y., Livingston, J. A., & Fava, N. M. (2011). Adolescent girls’ assessment and management of sexual risks: Insights from focus group research. Youth Society, 43, 1167–1193. Scholar
  6. Bay-Cheng, L. Y., Maguin, E., & Bruns, A. E. (2018). Who wears the pants: The implications of gender and power for youth heterosexual relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 55, 7–20. Scholar
  7. Beckmeyer, J. J., Ganong, L. H., Coleman, M., & Markham, M. S. (2017). Experiences with Coparenting scale: A semantic differential measure of postdivorce coparenting satisfaction. Journal of Family Issues, 38, 1471–1490. Scholar
  8. Berglas, N. F., Angulo-Olaiz, F., Jerman, P., Desai, M., & Constantine, N. A. (2014). Engaging youth perspectives on sexual rights and gender equality in intimate relationships as a foundation for rights-based sexuality education. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 11, 288–298. Scholar
  9. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research:'s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351–368. Scholar
  10. Bettie, J. (2014). Women without class: Girls, race, and identity. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. Scholar
  12. Brown, L. M., & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the crossroads: Women's psychology and girls' development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Casey, E. A., Masters, N. T., Beadnell, B., Wells, E. A., Morrison, D. M., & Hoppe, M. J. (2016). A latent class analysis of heterosexual young men’s masculinities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 1039–1050. Scholar
  14. Charles, C. E. (2010). Complicating hetero-femininities: Young women, sexualities and “girl power” at school. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23, 33–47. Scholar
  15. Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diekman, A. B., & Goodfriend, W. (2006). Rolling with the changes: A role congruity perspective on gender norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 369–383. Scholar
  17. Elliott, S. (2014). “Who’s to blame?” Constructing the responsible sexual agent in neoliberal sex education. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 11, 211–224. Scholar
  18. Estepa, J. (2017, May 23). Donald Trump calls Manchester bomber (and many, many other people) ‘losers’. USA Today. Retrieved from
  19. Fahs, B., & McClelland, S. I. (2016). When sex and power collide: An argument for critical sexuality studies. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 392–416. Scholar
  20. Farvid, P., Braun, V., & Rowney, C. (2017). ‘No girl wants to be called a slut!’: Women, heterosexual casual sex and the sexual double standard. Journal of Gender Studies, (5), 544–560. Scholar
  21. Fasula, A. M., Carry, M., & Miller, K. S. (2014). A multidimensional framework for the meanings of the sexual double standard and its application for the sexual health of young Black women in the U.S. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 170–183. Scholar
  22. Fiske, S. T. (2013). Varieties of (de)humanization: Divided by competition and status. In S. J. Gervais (Ed.), Objectification and (de)humanization (pp. 53–71). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. Scholar
  24. Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (2005). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality (2nd ed.). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers (Original work published 1973).Google Scholar
  25. García, L. (2009). Now why do you want to know about that?: Heteronormativity, sexism, and racism in the sexual (mis)education of Latina youth. Gender and Society, 23, 520–541. Scholar
  26. Gavey, N. (2005). Just sex? The cultural scaffolding of rape. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213–224. Scholar
  28. Griffin, C., Szmigin, I., Bengry-Howell, A., Hackley, C., & Mistral, W. (2013). Inhabiting the contradictions: Hypersexual femininity and the culture of intoxication among young women in the UK. Feminism & Psychology, 23, 184–206. Scholar
  29. Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 399–423. Scholar
  30. Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 400–407. Scholar
  31. Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jonason, P. K., & Marks, M. J. (2009). Common vs. uncommon sexual acts: Evidence for the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 60, 357–365. Scholar
  33. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151. Scholar
  34. Keller, J., Mendes, K., & Ringrose, J. (2018). Speaking ‘unspeakable things’: Documenting digital feminist responses to rape culture. Journal of Gender Studies, 27, 22–36. Scholar
  35. Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2013). Integrating the stereotype content model (warmth and competence) and the Osgood semantic differential (evaluation, potency, and activity). European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 673–681. Scholar
  36. Lamb, S. (2010a). Feminist ideals for a healthy female adolescent sexuality: A critique. Sex Roles, 62, 294–306. Scholar
  37. Lamb, S. (2010b). Towards a sexual ethics curriculum: Bringing philosophy and society to bear on individual development. Harvard Educational Review, 80, 81–105. Scholar
  38. Lamb, S., & Peterson, Z. D. (2012). Adolescent girls’ sexual empowerment: Two feminists explore the concept. Sex Roles, 66, 703–712. Scholar
  39. Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (2001). Reconceptualizing the sexual double standard. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 13, 63–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miller, S. A. (2016). How you bully a girl: Sexual drama and the negotiation of gendered sexuality in high school. Gender and Society, 30, 721–744. Scholar
  41. National Football League. (2017, August 16). Statement from Joe Lockhart, NFL Executive Vice President of Communications. [Tweet]. Retrieved from
  42. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  43. Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184–188. Scholar
  44. Payne, E. (2010). Sluts: Heteronormative policing in the stories of lesbian youth. Educational Studies, 46, 317–336. Scholar
  45. Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 21–38. Scholar
  46. Pham, Q. N. (2013). Enduring bonds: Politics and life outside freedom as autonomy. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 38, 29–48. Scholar
  47. Pierce, W. D., Sydie, R. A., Stratkotter, R., & Krull, C. (2003). Social concepts and judgments: A semantic differential analysis of the concepts feminist, man, and woman. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 338–346. Scholar
  48. Reid, P. T., & Bing, V. M. (2000). Sexual roles of girls and women: An ethnocultural lifespan perspective. In C. B. Travis & J. W. White (Eds.), Sexuality, society, and feminism (pp. 141–166). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ringrose, J., & Walkerdine, V. (2007). What does it mean to be a girl in the twenty-first century? Exploring some contemporary dilemmas of femininity and girlhood in the West. In C. A. Mitchell & J. Reid-Walsh (Eds.), Girl culture: An encyclopedia (Vol. 1, pp. 6–16). Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  50. Sakaluk, J. K., & Milhausen, R. R. (2012). Factors influencing university students' explicit and implicit sexual double standards. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 464–476. Scholar
  51. Sakaluk, J. K., Todd, L. M., Milhausen, R., Lachowsky, N. J., & Undergraduate Research Group in Sexuality URGiS. (2014). Dominant heterosexual sexual scripts in emerging adulthood: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 516–531. Scholar
  52. Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 97–120. Scholar
  53. Smiler, A. P. (2008). “I wanted to get to know her better”: Adolescent boys’ dating motives, masculinity ideology, and sexual behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 17–32. Scholar
  54. Stephens, D. P., & Phillips, L. D. (2003). Freaks, gold diggers, divas, and dykes: The sociohistorical development of adolescent African American women’s sexual scripts. Sexuality and Culture, 7, 3–49. Scholar
  55. Stewart, A. J., & Healy, J. M. (1989). Linking individual development and social changes. American Psychologist, 44, 30–42. Scholar
  56. Strassberg, D. S., & Lowe, K. (1995). Volunteer bias in sexuality research. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24, 369–382. Scholar
  57. Tanenbaum, L. (2015). The truth about slut-shaming [Blog post]. Retrieved from
  58. Tolman, D. L., Davis, B. R., & Bowman, C. P. (2016). “That’s just how it is”: A gendered analysis of masculinity and femininity ideologies in adolescent girls’ and boys’ heterosexual relationships. Journal of Adolescent Research, 31, 3–31. Scholar
  59. Valenti, J. (2010). The purity myth: How America’s obsession with virginity is hurting young women. Berkeley: Seal Press.Google Scholar
  60. Verhagen, T., van den Hooff, B., & Meents, S. (2015). Toward a better use of the semantic differential in IS research: An integrative framework of suggested action. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 108–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilke, J., & Saad, L. (2013, June 3). Older Americans’ moral attitudes changing: Moral acceptance of teenage sex among the biggest generational divides. Retrieved from
  62. Wilkins, A. C., & Miller, S. A. (2017). Secure girls: Class, sexuality, and self-esteem. Sexualities. Advance online publication. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laina Y. Bay-Cheng
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anne E. Bruns
    • 1
  • Eugene Maguin
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Social WorkUniversity at BuffaloBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.Buffalo Center for Social ResearchUniversity at BuffaloBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations