An Examination of the Sexual Double Standard Pertaining to Masturbation and the Impact of Assumed Motives

Abstract

Research reveals that masturbation is a highly stigmatized behavior for which people are harshly judged. Stigmatized sexual behaviors often result in discrepancies in social judgment such as the Sexual Double Standard (SDS; the tendency to judge women’s sexual behavior more harshly than men’s). However, no research has experimentally examined the SDS with respect to masturbation or the assumed motives influencing the potential SDS. Thus, in study one, a total of 496 U.S. adults (246 women, 250 men) were required to read one of four vignettes depicting a hypothetical man or woman engaged in masturbation. After reading the vignette, the endorsement of the SDS was assessed by asking participants to rate the perceived partner quality of the hypothetical masturbator. In study two, a total of 264 U.S. adults (115 women, 149 men) were again required to read vignettes, rate the target’s perceived partner quality, and report on the assumed pleasure and intimacy-focused motives of the target. The results of both studies revealed a reverse SDS, in which women were viewed as higher quality partners than men. Study two further demonstrated that women were assumed to have masturbated for both pleasure and intimacy-focused motives to a greater extent than men and that these motives helped to explain the reverse SDS. Overall, these findings highlight the need to equalize double standards in Western cultures to reduce potentially harmful effects on sexual health.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    To examine potential racial/cultural differences in U.S. men and women’s judgments, an additional 2 (gender of target) × 4 (race of participant) between-subjects ANOVA was conducted. For this analysis, the race of the participant was collapsed into four categories (due to small cell sizes for certain groups): black/African American, Caucasian, Asian, and other/mixed race. The results revealed that the main effect of the self-identified race of the participant did not influence partner quality judgments of the hypothetical target, F(3, 485) = 1.15, p = .33, ηp2 = 0.01. In addition, the interaction between the gender of the target and the race of the participant also failed to produce significance, F(3, 485) = 2.00, p = .11, ηp2 = 0.01. These results indicate that one’s race does not impact judgments of men and women who engage in masturbation.

  2. 2.

    To provide additional support that perceived motives mediated the relationship between gender and perceptions of partner quality and not the reverse (perceived partner quality mediated the relationship between gender and perceived motives), two inverse mediational analyses were conducted. In these analyses, the gender of target was still entered as the predictor variable (X), but scores on the PQS were entered as the mediating variable (M), and perceived motives were entered as outcome variables (Y). The results revealed that although the first two requirements to determine mediation were met, the reduction from c to c1 was not significant (p > .05). Thus, despite the cross-sectional design employed in study two, these analyses provide additional support that perceived motives do (in fact) partially explain the relationship between the gender of the target and perceptions of partner quality.

References

  1. Bowman, C. P. (2017). Masturbation. In L. L. Nadal (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of psychology and gender (pp. 1123–1124). Thousand Oaks, C.A: SAGE Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bowman, S. L. (2013). Feminist and multicultural counseling psychology: A blueprint for cooperation. Sex Roles,70, 436–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313514855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown, N. R., & Sinclair, R. C. (1999). Estimating number of lifetime sexual partners: Men and women do it differently. The Journal of Sex Research,36, 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bullough, V. L. (2003). Masturbation: A historical overview. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 14, 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v14n02_03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Burton, N. (2017). For better for worse: Should i get married?. Exeter, Devon: Acheron Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Carvalheira, A. A., Brotto, L. A., & Leal, I. (2010). Women’s motivations for sex: Exploring the diagnostic and statistical manual, fourth edition, text revision criteria for hypoactive sexual desire and female sexual arousal disorders. The Journal of Sexual Medicine,7, 1454–1463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01693.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chowdhury, M. R. H. K., Chowdhury, M. R. K., Nipa, N. S., Kabir, R., Moni, M. A., & Kordowicz, M. (2019). Masturbation experience: A case study of undergraduate students in Bangladesh. Journal of Population and Social Studies,27, 359–372. https://doi.org/10.25133/JPSSv27n4.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Coleman, E. (2002). Masturbation as a means of achieving sexual health. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality,14, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v14n02_02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The fewer the merrier?: Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01286.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cooper, M. L., Shapiro, C. M., & Powers, A. M. (1998). Motivations for sex and risky sexual behavior among adolescents and young adults: A functional perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75, 1528–1558. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cornog, M. (2003). The BIG book of masturbation: From Angst to Zeal. San Francisco: Down There Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Das, A. (2007). Masturbation in the United States. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy,33, 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926230701385514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dworkin, S. L., & O’Sullivan, L. (2005). Actual versus desired initiation patterns among a sample of college men: Tapping disjunctures within traditional male sexual scripts. Journal of Sex Research,42, 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490509552268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fahs, B., & Frank, E. (2014). Notes from the back room: Gender, power, and (in)visibility in women’s experiences of masturbation. Journal of Sex Research,51, 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.745474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-013-9167-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0408-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Frank, E. (2016). Masturbation. In N. A. Naples (Ed.), The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of gender and sexuality studies (pp. 1638–1640). Walden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fritz, M. S., Taylor, A. B., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2012). Explanation of two anomalous results in statistical mediation analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research,47, 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.640596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Harvey, C. A., Harvey, T. A., & Thompson, A. E. (2019). The “sextual” double standard: An experimental examination of variations in judgments of men and women who engage in computer-mediated sexual communication. Sexuality and Culture. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09658-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hatfield, E., Luckhurst, C., & Rapson, R. (2011). Sexual motives: The impact of gender, personality, and social context on sexual motives and sexual behavior—Especially risky sexual behavior. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships,5, 95–133. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v5i2.60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Herbenick, D., Bowling, J., Fu, T. C. J., Dodge, B., Guerra-Reyes, L., & Sanders, S. (2017). Sexual diversity in the United States: Results from a nationally representative probability sample of adult women and men. PLoS ONE,12, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Herbenick, D., Fu, T. C., Arter, J., Sanders, S. A., & Dodge, B. (2018). Women’s experiences with genital touching, sexual pleasure, and orgasm: Results from a US probability sample of women ages 18–94. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy,44, 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2017.1346530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Herbenick, D., Reece, M., Sanders, S., Dodge, B., Ghassemi, A., & Fortenberry, J. D. (2009). Prevalence and characteristics of vibrator use by women in the United States: Results from a nationally representative study. The Journal of Sexual Medicine,6, 1857–1866. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01318.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Herbenick, D., Reece, M., Schick, V., Sanders, S. A., Dodge, B., & Fortenberry, J. D. (2010). Sexual behavior in the United States: Results from a National Probability Sample of Men and Women Ages 14–94. International Society for Sexual Medicine,7, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02012.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Herdt, G. (2005). The Sambia: Ritual, sexuality, and change in Papua New Guinea. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Herek, G. M. (2002). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward bisexual men and women in the United States. The Journal of Sex Research,39, 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Higgins, L. T., Zheng, M., Liu, Y., & Sun, C. H. (2002). Attitudes to marriage and sexual behaviors: A survey of gender and culture differences in China and United Kingdom. Sex Roles,46, 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016565426011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hogarth, H., & Ingham, R. (2009). Masturbation among young women and associations with sexual health: An exploratory study. Journal of Sex Research,46, 558–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490902878993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hurlbert, D. F., & Whittaker, K. E. (1991). The role of masturbation in marital and sexual satisfaction: A comparative study of female masturbators and nonmasturbators. Journal of Sex Education & Therapy,17, 272–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/01614576.1991.11074029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist,60, 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hyde, J. S., & Jaffee, S. R. (2000). Becoming a heterosexual adult: The experiences of young women. Journal of Social Issues,56, 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2003). Sexual compliance: Gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. The Journal of Sex Research,40, 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jonason, P. K. (2007). A meditation hypothesis is to account for the sex difference in reported number of sexual partners: An intrasexual competition approach. International Journal of Sexual Health,19, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1300/J514v19n04_05.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jonason, P. K., & Marks, M. J. (2009). Common vs. uncommon sexual acts: Evidence for the sexual double standard. Sex Roles,60, 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9542-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9722-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kelly, J., & Bazzini, D. G. (2001). Gender, sexual experience, and the sexual double standard: Evaluations of female contraceptive behavior. Sex Roles,45, 785–799. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015640419862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kettrey, H. H. (2016). What’s gender got to do with it? Sexual double standards and power inheterosexual college hookups. The Journal of Sex Research,53, 754–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1145181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kim, J. L., Sorsoli, C. L., Collins, K., Zylbergold, B. A., Schooler, D., & Tolman, D. L. (2007). From sex to sexuality: Exposing the heterosexual script on primetime network television. Journal of Sex Research,44, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490701263660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kontula, O., & Haavio-Mannila, E. (2003). Masturbation in a generational perspective. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality,14, 49–83. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v14n02_05.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kristal, A. R., Glanz, K., Tilley, B. C., & Li, S. H. (2000). Mediating factors in dietary change: Understanding the impact of a worksite nutrition intervention. Health Education and Behavior,27, 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019810002700110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. LaMar, L., & Kite, M. (1998). Sex differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: A multidimensional perspective. The Journal of Sex Research,35, 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lamont, E. (2017). “We can write the scripts ourselves”: Queer challenges to heteronormative courtship practices. Gender & Society,31, 624–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243217723883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lindsay, D. S. (2015). Replication in psychological science. Psychological Science,26, 1827–1832. https://doi.org/10.1177/095679765616374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Madanikia, Y., Bartholomew, K., & Cytrynbaum, J. B. (2013). Depiction of masturbation in North American movies. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,22, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2013.2052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mark, K. P., & Haus, K. R. (2019). Culture and sexuality. In N. Gambescia, G. Weeks, & K. M. Hertlein (Eds.), Systemic sex therapy (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Masters, N. T., Casey, E., Wells, E. A., & Morrison, D. M. (2013). Sexual scripts among young heterosexually active men and women: Continuity and change. Journal of Sex Research, 50(5), 409–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods,12, 23. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Maxwell, S. E., Cole, D. A., & Mitchell, M. A. (2011). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation: Partial and complete mediation under an autoregressive model. Multivariate Behavioral Research,46, 816–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.606716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y., & Howard, G. S. (2015). Is Psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “Failure to Replicate” really mean? American Psychologist,70, 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Meiller, C., & Hargons, C. N. (2019). “It’s happiness and relief and release”: Exploring masturbation among bisexual and queer women. Journal of Counseling Sexology & Sexual Wellness: Research, Practice, and Education,1, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior,36, 477–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9175-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (1999). Does the sexual double standard still exist? Perceptions of university women. The Journal of Sex Research,36, 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909552008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. O’Sullivan, L. F., Cheng, M. M., Harris, K. M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2007). I wanna hold your hand: The progression of social, romantic and sexual events in adolescent relationships. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health,39, 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1363/3910007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Papp, L. J., Hagerman, C., Gnoleba, M. A., Erchull, M. J., Liss, M., Miles-McLean, H., et al. (2015). Exploring perceptions of slut-shaming on Facebook: Evidence for a reverse sexual double standard. Gender Issues,32, 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0866-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Prause, N. (2019). Porn is for masturbation. Archives of Sexual Behavior,48, 2271–2277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1397-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Regnerus, M., Price, J., & Gordon, D. (2017). Masturbation and partnered sex: Substitutes or complements? Archives of Sexual Behavior,46, 2111–2121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0975-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sakaluk, J. K., & Milhausen, R. R. (2012). Factors influencing university students’ explicit and implicit sexual double standards. Journal of Sex Research,49, 464–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.569976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Sanchez, D. T., Phelan, J. E., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Good, J. J. (2012). The gender role motivation model of women’s sexually submissive behavior and satisfaction in heterosexual couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,38, 528–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211430088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Schneider, I. K., Veenstra, L., van Harreveld, F., Schwarz, N., & Koole, S. L. (2016). Let’s not be indifferent about neutrality: Neutral ratings in the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) mask mixed affective responses. Emotion,16, 426. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1984). Sexual scripts. Society,22, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02701260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology,13, 290–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02438165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Tackett, J. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., Johnsom, S. L., Krueger, R. F., Miller, J. D., et al. (2017). It’s time to broaden the replicability conversation: Thoughts for and from clinical psychological science. Perspectives on Psycholological Science,12, 742–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617690042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Thompson, A. E., Hart, J., Stefaniak, S., & Harvey, C. (2018). Exploring heterosexual adults’ endorsement of the sexual double standard among initiators of consensually nonmonogamous relationship behaviors. Sex Roles,79, 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0866-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Thompson, A. E., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2013). The relationship between men’s facial masculinity and women’s judgments of value as a potential romantic partner. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 22, 5–12. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Tiegs, T. J., Perrin, P. B., Kaly, P. W., & Heesacker, M. (2007). My place or yours? An inductive approach to sexuality and gender role conformity. Sex Roles,56, 449–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9185-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Tolman, D. L., Kim, J. L., Schooler, C., & Sorsoli, C. L. (2007). Rethinking the associations between television viewing and adolescent sexuality development: Bringing gender into focus. Journal of Adolescent Health,40, 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0540-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Twenge, J. M., Sherman, R. A., & Wells, B. E. (2016). Changes in American adults’ reported same-sex sexual experiences and attitudes, 1973–2014. Archives of Sexual Behavior,45, 1717–1730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0769-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Vannier, S. A., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2011). Communicating interest in sex: Verbal and nonverbal initiation of sexual activity in young adults’ romantic dating relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior,40, 961–969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-010-9663-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Wesche, R., Espinosa-Hernandez, G., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2016). Gender’s role in misperceptions of peers’ sexual motives. Sexuality and Culture,20, 1003–1019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-016-9370-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Willis, M., Jozkowski, K. N., Lo, W., & Sanders, S. A. (2018). Are women’s orgasms hindered by phallocentric imperatives? Archives of Sexual Behavior,47, 1565–1576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1149-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Young, C. D., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (2011). Attitudes toward masturbation scale. In T. D. Fisher, C. C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (3rd ed., pp. 491–494). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Young, V. J., & Burke, T. J. (2017). Self, partner and relationship motivations for healthy and unhealthy behaviors. Health Psychology Report,5, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5114/hpr.2017.65221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Chipuer, H. M., Hanisch, M., Creed, P. A., & McGregor, L. (2006). Relationships at school and stage-environment fit as resources for adolescent engagement and achievement. Journal of Adolescence,29, 911–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Zwaan, R. A., Etz, A., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2018). Making replication mainstream. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,e120, 1–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x17001972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by University of Minnesota, Duluth, Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine R. Haus.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (University of Minnesota Human Research Protection Program; STUDY00001893) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haus, K.R., Thompson, A.E. An Examination of the Sexual Double Standard Pertaining to Masturbation and the Impact of Assumed Motives. Sexuality & Culture 24, 809–834 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09666-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Masturbation
  • Sexual double standard
  • Motives
  • Perceived gender differences