Skip to main content

Exploring College Men’s and Women’s Attitudes about Women’s Sexuality and Pleasure via their Perceptions of Female Novelty Party Attendees

Abstract

Women’s sexual desire, agency, and activity have long been stigmatized. In contemporary times, however, adult novelty parties, or gatherings where women can learn about and purchase sex toys or other sensual aids in a group setting, are widespread. The current pervasiveness of novelty parties may be indicative of greater acceptance of women’s sexuality in contemporary Western society. The goal of the present study is to determine whether young people are more accepting of women’s sexuality and desire via their evaluations of women who attend novelty parties relative to more traditional kitchen product parties. In two experiments, U.S. college students read either a novelty party catalog or a kitchen party catalog, and they evaluated hypothetical female attendees of their respective party catalog type across ten total domains. In Experiment 1 (n = 205), novelty party attendees were rated as more vivacious, less traditional, and more insecure than were kitchen party attendees. In Experiment 2 (n = 211), women were harsher than men on novelty party attendees compared to kitchen party attendees in most domains, and men rated novelty party attendees as more masculine than kitchen party attendees, whereas women rated novelty party attendees as less masculine and feminine than kitchen party attendees. Applied and social implications of the present results are discussed, highlighting ways to improve perceptions of women’s sexual desires and pleasure.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Armstrong, E. A., England, P., & Fogarty, A. C. (2012). Accounting for women’s orgasm and sexual enjoyment in college hookups and relationships. American Sociological Review, 77, 435–462. doi:10.1177/0003122412445802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Asencio, M. (2009). Migrant Puerto Rican lesbians negotiating gender, sexuality, and ethnonationality. National Women’s Studies Association Journal, 21, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2002). Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6, 166–203. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.6.2.166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339–363. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bell, L. C. (2013). Hard to get: Twenty-something women and the paradox of sexual freedom. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bem, S. L. (1981). Bem Sex Role Inventory: Professional manual. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

  7. Boomsma, A. (1982). The robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor analysis models. In K. G. Jöreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation: Causality, structure, prediction (part 1) (pp. 149–173). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bury, L., Bruch, S. A., Barbery, X. M., & Pimentel, F. G. (2012). Hidden realities: What women do when they want to terminate an unwanted pregnancy in Bolivia. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 118, 4–9. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carver, P. R., Yunger, J. L., & Perry, D. G. (2003). Gender identity and adjustment in middle childhood. Sex Roles, 49, 95–109. doi:10.1023/A:1024423012063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Comella, L. (2008). It’s sexy. It’s big business. And it’s not just for men. Contexts, 7, 61–63. doi:10.1525/ctx.2008.7.3.61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Valentine, B. A. (2011). Women, men, and the bedroom: Methodological and conceptual insights that narrow, reframe, and eliminate gender differences in sexuality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 296–300. doi:10.1177/0963721411418467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., & Moors, A. C. (2013). Backlash from the bedroom stigma mediates gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 392–407. doi:10.1177/0361684312467169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Coulmont, B., & Hubbard, P. (2010). Consuming sex: Socio-legal shifts in the space and place of sex shops. Journal of Law and Society, 37, 189–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Coward, R. (1985). Female desires: How they are sought, bought and packaged. New York: Grove Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Curtis, D. (2004). Commodities and sexual subjectivities: A look at capitalism and its desires. Cultural Anthropology, 19, 95–121. doi:10.1525/ctx.2008.7.3.61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 458–476). Thousand Oaks: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446249222.n49.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (2001). Gender identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 17, 451–463. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.4.451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fahs, B., & Swank, E. (2013). Adventures with the “plastic man”: Sex toys, compulsory heterosexuality, and the politics of women’s sexual pleasure. Sexuality and Culture, 17, 666–685. doi:10.1007/s12119-013-9167-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fetterolf, J. C., & Sanchez, D. T. (2015). The costs and benefits of perceived sexual agency for men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 961–970. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0408-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Giddens, A. (2013). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Glover, R. (2010). Can’t buy a thrill: Substantive due process, equal protection, and criminalizing sex toys. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100, 555–598.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gorsuch, R. L. (1974). Factor analysis. Philadelphia: Saunders.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hamilton, L., & Armstrong, E. A. (2009). Gendered sexuality in young adulthood double binds and flawed options. Gender and Society, 23, 589–616. doi:10.1177/0891243209345829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Harrison, L. A., & Secarea, A. M. (2010). College students’ attitudes toward the sexualization of professional women athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 33, 403–426.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jackson, S. (2005). ‘Dear Girlfriend...’: Constructions of sexual health problems and sexual identities in letters to a teenage magazine. Sexualities, 8, 282–305. doi:10.1177/1363460705049577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kaestle, C. E., & Allen, K. R. (2011). The role of masturbation in healthy sexual development: Perceptions of young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 983–994. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9722-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lando-King, E., McRee, A. L., Gower, A. L., Shlafer, R. J., McMorris, B. J., Pettingell, S., & Sieving, R. E. (2015). Relationships between social-emotional intelligence and sexual risk behaviors in adolescent girls. The Journal of Sex Research, 52, 835–840. doi:10.1080/00224499.2014.976782.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lindemann, D. J. (2006). Pathology full circle: A history of anti-vibrator legislation in the United States. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 15, 326–346.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Malina, D., & Schmidt, R. A. (1997). It’s business doing pleasure with you: Sh! A women’s sex shop case. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 15, 352–360. doi:10.1108/02634509710367926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52, 175–186. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-1293-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2007). The impact of social interaction on the sexual double standard. Social Influence, 2, 29–54. doi:10.1080/15534510601154413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. McCaughey, M., & French, C. (2001). Women’s sex-toy parties: Technology, orgasm, and commodification. Sexuality and Culture, 5, 77–96. doi:10.1007/s12119-001-1031-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Milton, G. (2016). U.S. Patent No. 9,237,983. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Montemurro, B. (2003). Not a laughing matter: Sexual harassment as “material” on workplace-based situation comedies. Sex Roles, 48, 433–445. doi:10.1023/A:1023578528629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Montemurro, B. (2014). Deserving desire: Women’s stories of sexual evolution. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Montemurro, B., & Gillen, M. M. (2013). How clothes make the woman immoral: Impressions given off by sexualized clothing. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 31, 167–181. doi:10.1177/0887302X13493128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Morris, J. F., Balsam, K. F., & Rothblum, E. D. (2002). Lesbian and bisexual mothers and nonmothers: Demographics and the coming-out process. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 144–156. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.16.2.144.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Mosher, D. L., & Tompkins, S. E. (1988). Scripting the macho man: Hyper masculine socialization and enculturation. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 60–84. doi:10.1080/00224498809551445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Muehlenhard, C. L., & Scardino, T. J. (1985). What will he think? Men’s impressions of women who initiate dates and achieve academically. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 560–569. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.32.4.560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences insexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 21–38. doi:10.1037/a0017504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Prinstein, M. J., Meade, C. S., & Cohen, G. L. (2003). Adolescent oral sex, peer popularity, and perceptions of best friends’ sexual behavior. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 28, 243–249. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsg012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Rohlinger, D. A. (2002). Eroticizing men: Cultural influences on advertising and male objectification. Sex Roles, 46, 61–74. doi:10.1023/A:1016575909173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rudman, L. A., Fetterolf, J. C., & Sanchez, D. T. (2013). What motivates the sexual double standard? More support for male versus female control theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 250–263. doi:10.1177/0146167212472375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 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. The Journal of Sex Research, 51, 516–531. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.745473.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sanchez, D. T., & Crocker, J. (2005). How investment in gender ideals affects well-being: The role of external contingencies of self-worth. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 63–77. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00169.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Schwartz, P., & Rutter, V. (1998). The gender of sexuality. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Sheeran, P., Spears, R., Abraham, S. S., & Abrams, D. (1996). Religiosity, gender, and the double standard. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 130, 23–33. doi:10.1080/00223980.1996.9914985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Takiff, H. A., Sanchez, D. T., & Stewart, T. L. (2001). What’s in a name? The status implications of students’ terms of address for male and female professors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 134–144. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.00015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. H. (2011). Sexual hookups among college students: Sex differences in emotional reactions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1173–1181. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9841-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Travis, C. B., & White, J. W. (2000). Sexuality, society, and feminism. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10345-000.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. Twenge, J. M., Sherman, R. A., & Wells, B. E. (2015). Changes in American adults’ sexual behavior and attitudes, 1972–2012. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 2273–2285. doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0540-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Vaes, J., Paladino, P., & Puvia, E. (2011). Are sexualized women complete human beings? Why men and women dehumanize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 774–785. doi:10.1002/ejsp.824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Waskul, D. D., Vannini, P., & Wiesen, D. (2007). Women and their clitoris: Personal discovery, signification, and use. Symbolic Interaction, 30, 151–174. doi:10.1525/si.2007.30.2.151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal, 13, 496–502. doi:10.1177/1066480705278729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Zaikman, Y., & Marks, M. J. (2014). Ambivalent sexism and the sexual double standard. Sex Roles, 71, 333–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Marks.

Ethics declarations

My coauthors and I hereby declare that the research represented in this paper was approved by the psychology department IRB and conducted according to APA ethical standards, and that the manuscript itself and data contained therein are original and have not been submitted for consideration elsewhere.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 17 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marks, M.J., Wosick, K. Exploring College Men’s and Women’s Attitudes about Women’s Sexuality and Pleasure via their Perceptions of Female Novelty Party Attendees. Sex Roles 77, 550–561 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0737-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Sex toy party
  • women’s sexuality
  • Sexual desire
  • Gender differences
  • Novelty party
  • Dildo
  • Masturbation
  • Gender norms
  • Women’s sexual agency