Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gender, Belief in the Sexual Double Standard, and Sexual Talk in Heterosexual Dating Relationships

  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study was focused on the extent to which sex, gender, and attitudes toward sexuality influenced the amount and quality of sexual communication within 698 heterosexual dating couples. Women reported more dyadic sexual negotiation but less sexual negotiation efficacy than their male partners, and individuals with less traditional attitudes toward gender roles and sexuality indicated that they discussed more sexual issues and disclosed more sexual information with their partners. Couples with more dyadic sexual communication and sexual assertiveness (but lesser negotiation efficacy) reported increased relational satisfaction. We frame the findings from a script perspective, and our results suggest that individuals who self-disclose important information about sexual issues contribute to the effectiveness of sexual communication in a dating relationship.

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

  • Afifi, W. A. (1999). Harming the ones we love: Relational attachment and perceived consequences as predictors of safe sex behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 198–206.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Buysse, A., & Ickes, W. (1999). Communication patterns in laboratory discussions of safer sex between dating and nondating partners. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 121–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byers, E. S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program of research. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 7–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byers, E. S., & Demmons, S. (1999). Sexual satisfaction and sexual self-discourse within dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 180–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caron, S. L., Davis, C. M., Halteman, W. A., & Stickle, M. (1993). Predictions of condom-related behaviors among first-year college students. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 252–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catania, J. A., Coates, T. J., Kegeles, S., Fullilove, M. T., Peterson, J., Marin, B., Siegel, D., & Hulley, S. (1992). Condom use in multi-ethnic neighborhoods of San Francisco: The population-based AMEN (AIDS in multi-ethnic neighborhoods) study. American Journal of Public Health, 82, 284–287.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. J., & Bruce, K. E. (1997). Sex and mortality: Real risk and perceived vulnerability. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 279–291.

    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 

  • Cupach, W. R., & Comstock, J. (1990). Satisfaction with sexual communication in marriage: Links to sexual satisfaction and dyadic adjustment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 179–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLamater, J. (1987). Gender differences in sexual scenarios. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Females, males, and sexuality (pp. 127–139). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, S. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1986). Satisfaction and commitment in homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 12, 1–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Edgar, T., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1993). Expectations for sexual interaction: A cognitive test of the sequencing of sexual communication behaviors. Health Communication, 5, 239–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, S. L., & Greene, K. (2002, November). Sexual self-disclosure in heterosexual dating relationships. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • Faulkner, S. L., & Mansfield, P. K. (2002). Reconciling messages: The process of sexual talk for Latinas. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 310–328.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, M. (1988). Sexuality, schooling, and adolescent females: The missing discourse of desire. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 29–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, J. H. (1990). The explicit and implicit use of the scripting perspective in sex research. Annual Review of Sex Research, 1, 1–43.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giffin, K. (1998). Beyond empowerment: Heterosexualities and the prevention of AIDS. Social Science and Medicine, 46, 151–156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez, C. A., & Marin, B. V. (1996). Gender, culture, and power: Barriers to HIV-prevention strategies for women. Journal of Sex Research, 33, 355–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, K., Derlega, V. J., Yep, G. A., & Petronio, S. (2003). Privacy and disclosure of HIV in interpersonal relationships: A sourcebook for researchers and practitioners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herold, S. E., & Way, L. (1988). Sexual self-disclosure among university women. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbert, D. E. (1991). The role of assertiveness in female sexuality: A comparative study between sexually aggressive and sexually nonassertive women. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 17, 183–190.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hynie, M., & Lydon, J. E. (1995). Women's perceptions of female contraceptive behavior: Experimental evidence of the sexual double standard. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 563–581.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hynie, M., Lydon, J. E., Cote, S., & Wiener, S. (1998). Relational sexual scripts and women's condom use: The importance of internalized norms. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 370–380.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lock, S. E., Ferguson, S. L., & Wise, C. (1998). Communication of sexual risk behavior among late adolescents. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 20, 273–294.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marin, B. V. (1996). Cultural issues in HIV prevention for Latinos: Should we try to change gender roles? In S. Oskamp & S. C. Thompson (Eds.), Understanding and preventing HIV risk behavior: Safer sex and drug use (pp. 157–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metts, S., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1992). Thinking about safer-sex: The risky business of ‘know your partner’ advice. In T. Edgar, M. A. Fitzpatrick, & V. S. Freimuth (Eds.), AIDS: A communication perspective (pp. 1–19). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metts, S., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1996). Sexual communication in interpersonal contexts: A script-based approach. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 49–91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (1999). Does the sexual double standard still exist? Perceptions of university women. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 361–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morokoff, P. J. (2000). A cultural context for sexual assertiveness in women. In C. B. Travis & J. W. White (Eds.), Sexuality, society and feminism (pp. 299–319). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morokoff, P. J., Quina, K., Harlow, L. L., Whitmire, L., Grimley, D. M., Gibson, P. R., & Burkholder, G. J. (1997). Sexual assertiveness scale (SAS) for women: Development and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 790–804.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Muehlenhard, C. L., & Hollabaugh, L. C. (1988). Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women's token resistance to sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 872–879.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O'Sullivan, L. F. (1995). Less is more: The effects of sexual experience on judgments of men's and women's personality characteristics and relationship desirability. Sex Roles, 33, 159–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Sullivan, L. F., & Byers, S. E. (1992). College students' incorporation of initiator and restrictor roles in sexual dating interactions. Journal of Sex Research, 29, 435–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quina, K., Harlow, L. L., Morokoff, P. J., Burkholder, G., & Deiter, P. J. (2000). Sexual communication in relationships: When words speak louder than actions. Sex Roles, 42, 523–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, L. (1990). Erotic wars: What happened to the sexual revolution? New York: Fanar, Straus, & Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seal, D. W. (1997). Interpartner concordance of self-reported sexual behavior among college dating couples. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 39–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1987). A sexual scripts approach. In J. H. Geer & W. T. O'Donohue (Eds.), Theories of human sexuality (pp. 363–383). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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 

  • Troth, A., & Peterson, C. C. (2000). Factors predicting safer-sex talk and condom use in early sexual relationships. Health Communication, 12, 195–218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeless, L. R., & Parsons, L. A. (1995). What you feel is what you might get: Exploring sexual communication apprehension and sexual communication satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 12, 39–45.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, Rutgers University, 4 Huntington Street, New Brunswick, 08901-1071, New Jersey

    Kathryn Greene

  2. Department of Communication and Rhetorical Studies, Syracuse University, USA

    Sandra L. Faulkner

Authors
  1. Kathryn Greene
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandra L. Faulkner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathryn Greene.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Greene, K., Faulkner, S.L. Gender, Belief in the Sexual Double Standard, and Sexual Talk in Heterosexual Dating Relationships. Sex Roles 53, 239–251 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-5682-6

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-5682-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation