Enjoyment of Sexualization and Feminism: Relationships with Sexual Self-Schema and Psychosexual Health

Original Paper

Abstract

Feminists have debated whether enjoyment of sexualization (ES)—when women find sexualized attention from men rewarding—represents empowerment or patriarchal oppression. The purpose of this study was to investigate the psychosexual correlates of ES—sexual self-schema (SSS) and psychosexual health—among heterosexual college women (n = 754) and men (n = 389). Among women, ES was associated with a SSS in which women saw themselves as more heterosexual, more attractive, more open to unconventional sex acts, and having greater sentimentality about romantic relationships. Regarding psychosexual health, ES was not linked with general self-esteem but was associated with higher sexual esteem and lower sexual depression. Among men, ES was not related to SSS or psychosexual health. Overall, among women, ES was linked with positive outcomes, and it may represent women conforming to societal norms and using sexualized attention in order to obtain romantic intimacy. Rather than internalized misogyny, ES may represent an open approach to sexuality in which women take advantage of their sexualized position in society for their own empowerment.

Keywords

Feminism Sexy seven Sexual self-schema Self-objectification 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants in the study.

References

  1. Abdolsalehi-Najafi, E., & Beckman, L. J. (2013). Sex guilt and life satisfaction in Iranian-American women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1063–1071.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0084-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, B. L., & Cyranowski, J. M. (1994). Women’s sexual self-schema. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1079–1100.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, B. L., Cyranowski, J. M., & Espindle, D. (1999). Men’s sexual self-schema. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 645–661.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Attwood, F. (2007). Sluts and riot girls: Female identity and sexual agency. Journal of Gender Studies, 16, 233–247.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09589230701562921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2011). Evolutionary psychology and feminism. Sex Roles, 64, 768.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 894–908.  https://doi.org/10.13072/midss.220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Erchull, M. J., & Liss, M. (2013). Exploring the concept of perceived female sexual empowerment: Development and validation of the Sex is Power Scale. Gender Issues, 30, 39–53.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-013-9114-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Erchull, M. J., & Liss, M. (2014). The object of one’s desire: How perceived sexual empowerment through objectification is related to sexual outcomes. Sexuality and Culture, 18, 773.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-013-9216-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gill, R. (2008). Empowerment/sexism: Figuring female sexual agency in contemporary advertising. Feminism and Psychology, 18, 35–60.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353507084950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greer, A. E., & Buss, D. M. (1994). Tactics for promoting sexual encounters. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 185–201.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grieve, R., & Helmick, A. (2008). The influence of men’s self-objectification on the drive for muscularity: Self-esteem, body satisfaction and muscle dysmorphia. International Journal of Men’s Health, 7, 288.  https://doi.org/10.3149/jmh.0703.288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liss, M., Erchull, M. J., & Ramsey, L. R. (2011). Empowering or oppressing? Development and exploration of the Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 55–68.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210386119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mercurio, A. E., & Landry, L. J. (2008). Self-objectification and well-being: The impact of self-objectification on women’s overall sense of self-worth and life satisfaction. Sex Roles, 58, 458–466.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9357-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morrison, T. G., Morrison, M. A., & Hopkins, C. (2003). Striving for bodily perfection? An exploration of the drive for muscularity in Canadian men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4, 111.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.2.111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Muehlenkamp, J. J., & Saris-Baglama, R. N. (2002). Self objectification and its psychological outcomes for college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 371–379.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Oehlhof, M. E. W., Musher-Eizenman, D. R., Neufeld, J. M., & Hauser, J. C. (2009). Self-objectification and ideal body shape for men and women. Body Image, 6, 308–310.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2009.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Peterson, Z. D. (2010). What is sexual empowerment? A multidimensional and process-oriented approach to adolescent girls’ sexual empowerment. Sex Roles, 62, 307–313.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9725-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rellini, A. H., & Meston, C. M. (2011). Sexual self-schemas, sexual dysfunction, and the sexual responses of women with a history of childhood sexual abuse. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 351–362.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9694-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent child. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Sexual dimensions of person description: Beyond or subsumed by the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 141–177.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1999.2267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Singh, D. (2004). Mating strategies of young women: Role of physical attractiveness. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 43–54.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490409552212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Snell, W. E., & Papini, D. R. (1989). The sexuality scale: An instrument to measure sexual-esteem, sexual depression, and sexual-preoccupation. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 256–263.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498909551510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tiggemann, M., & Kuring, J. K. (2004). The role of body objectification in disordered eating and depressed mood. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 299–311.  https://doi.org/10.1348/0144665031752925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Visser, B. A., Sultani, F., Choma, B. L., & Possebon, J. A. (2014). Enjoyment of sexualization: Is it different for men? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(7), 495–504.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations