The Sexual Double Standard: Elusive and Ever-Present

Illustration by Hayley Lim via

"She just keeps going over there because she wants his attention because she likes him.  That's disgusting.  That to me, if you want to talk about slutty, that to me is whoring yourself out.  And, I mean, I hate to say that because she is one of my best friends, but good God, it's like how stupid can you be?" (female college student at a Midwestern American university from Armstrong et al., 2014, p. 108)

The sexual double standard reflects a pattern of women being judged more negatively than men for similar sexual behaviors (Jonason & Marks, 2009).  If a man engaging in causal sex is hailed as a "stud" or "player", but a women with the same sexual history is tarred as a "slut" or "whore", it reflects the sexual double standard.  In many societies, women are held to stricter sexual standards than men are, where it is more acceptable for men to engage in premarital or extramarital sex, for example, than it is for women to do the same (Baumeister & Twenge, 2002).

Is there a sexual double standard in the United States today?  Most people would probably say yes (Marks & Fraley, 2005; Milhausen & Herold, 1999, 2001).  Certainly young women worry about being stigmatized as a slut (Armstrong et al., 2014).  

Interestingly, though, research on the sexual double standard has been mixed.  This topic has been researched fairly extensively, but the results are inconsistent:  Some studies find evidence of the sexual double standard, while other studies do not find such evidence (Crawford & Popp, 2003; Fugère et al, 2008).

View image | gettyimages.com

For example, let's look at perceptions of contraceptive use:  Is a woman judged more negatively than a man when providing a condom in a sexual encounter?  Having a condom indicates sexual readiness and possibly experience, so the sexual double standard would suggest that a woman with a condom would be seen as "slutty" while a man with a condom would be seen as "responsible."   Suppose we give people scenarios in which a woman and a man are having a casual sexual encounter, but some of the people read a scenario in which the woman provides a condom, while others read one in which the man provides a condom or a third version where no condom is used.  What would we find?

• In Hynie and Lydon (1995), female undergraduates judged the woman's behavior more negatively and as more inappropriate when she provided a condom than when her male partner did so (or when no condom was used): evidence of the sexual double standard.  They also assumed her male partner would feel more negatively about her when she provided a condom than when he provided the condom. 
• On the other hand, Kelly and Bazzini (2002) conducted the same study with both male and female undergraduates and found no evidence of the sexual double standard.  In fact, female participants (and to some extent, male participants) judged the woman more positively when she provided a condom than when no condom was used.  Although again, female students (but not male students) thought her male partner would feel more negatively about her when she provided the condom.  (This belief is important and I'll come back to it later on.)
• In Young, Penhollow, and Bailey (2010), men, but not women, exhibited the sexual double standard, rating the woman more negatively when she provided a condom (compared to the same scenario when no condom was mentioned), while the man was rated more positively when he provided a condom.  Male participants rated the female character most positively when she didn't have casual sex and least positively when she had casual sex and provided the condom, but the male character was rated least positively in the "no sex" condition and most positively when he had casual sex and provided the condom -- a classic example of the sexual double standard.   

Such conflicting results may tempt us to throw up our hands in exasperation and mutter about the deficiencies of psychological science.  But wait!  There are really only three basic explanations of this kind of mixed research evidence:

1. The effect does not exist
2. The effect exists but is very small
3. The effect exists but only under certain circumstances

Linguistic Lacunae: What Our Sexual Language is (not) Saying

“Language and culture cannot be separated. Language is vital to understanding our unique cultural perspectives. Language is a tool that is used to explore and experience our cultures and the perspectives that are embedded in our cultures.”  -- Buffy Sainte-Marie

Language reflects and recreates culture.  Cultural attitudes become crystallized in language, which then serves to reinforce those cultural attitudes.  It behooves us to carefully examine our language, to interrogate the meanings lurking within our everyday speech. 

Take our sexual language, for example.¹ The way we talk about sex speaks volumes about our cultural attitudes towards sex.  I don't just mean the pervasive sexism of our sexual slang that reveals itself through the construction of women's bodies as dirty and the continued presence of the sexual double standard (Braun & Kitzinger, 2001; Schultz, 1975).  I don't even mean the negative view of sex that becomes obvious whenever sexual terms are used as crude insults.  Of course these themes are revealing and deeply troubling.  But our cultural attitudes are also evinced through what is missing from our sexual lexicon.

Take a moment to think about the sexual words and phrases you know -- terms for parts of the body, sexual acts, all of it.  (Go ahead; I'll wait.)  Then think about what is *not* present in this sexual language.  There are several important aspects of sexuality that get short shrift in our sexual lexicon.

[Note:  Sexual terminology will be mentioned after the jump, so if you are offended by crude or explicit language, you may not wish to read further.]

Death and the Salesman: The Use of Morbid Sexism in Advertising

As I was reviewing magazine and newspaper ads in preparation for class this week, I was struck by this ad:

Ad in Elle for Louis Vuitton;
from the Ms. Magazine No Comment archive (Summer 2010)

Why on earth would any company want to advertise its product by displaying it with a dead woman?  I couldn't understand the motivation here -- what were the advertisers thinking?  On the face of it, associating your product with death just seems like a bad idea.  I can just imagine the conversation in the marketing department --  I know, Bob, we'll show our bag with a dead woman, so everyone will think that our accessories can kill you!  Ok, maybe this ad is just a fluke, one of those advertisements that miss the mark.  But then I found more.

She *really* likes it: Eroticizing women's labor

I definitely do not look this happy when I am scrubbing the tub.
Image from Deviantly Domesticated (with funny commentary on lots of vintage ads)

Image from wonderfriend

Have you ever noticed how happy the women are in ads for cleaning products?  These advertisements  often glamorize domestic labor and imply that women are positively euphoric while cleaning (at least with the right product in hand).  You too can love cleaning and be floor-happy . . . with our product!  But some of the ads go further, implying that cleaning is an erotic experience for women.  In the Hoover ad below, for example, the woman is in a prone position, touching the vacuum lightly -- there is something intimate, almost romantic about the way they are situated (as well as putting her in a submissive position).   

I bet she'd be happier if
you promised to do the cleaning.
Image from SA_Steve on Flickr

This Pine-Sol ad, on the other hand, presents the woman in an orgiastic glow, presumably due to the stimulating qualities of the cleaning solution.  Who needs foreplay when you have Pine-Sol?

Pine-Sol -- with new aphrodisiac action!
Image from ThoughtCatalogue, who provides an
interesting retrospective of the Pine-Sol lady.

Janitors and Maids

Prompted by a Facebook discussion of my last post:

All this talk about professional cleaners got me to thinking about the distinction between janitors and maids.  Janitors tend to be men, while maids tend to be women.  According to the United States' Bureau of Labor Statistics, women make up 30.3% of janitors and building cleaners, while they make up 88.6% of maids and housekeeping cleaners.  Why? What is the key difference that makes one more male-dominated and one more female-dominated?

Let's start with the job descriptions.  The job description for janitors in the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that "[j]anitors and building cleaners keep many types of buildings clean, orderly, and in good condition," while the job description for maids indicates that "[m]aids and housekeeping cleaners do general cleaning tasks, including making beds and vacuuming halls, in private homes and commercial establishments."  These sound like very similar jobs to me.  Both involve cleaning buildings, although maids also work in private homes and janitors are involved in keeping buildings in good condition, as well as clean.  I'm still not quite getting the critical distinction that accounts for the gender disparity.  

Maid: Unpacking Ambivalence

Sometimes, while I am engaged in some unpleasant cleaning task, I think about how nice it would be to hire someone to do some of these cleaning jobs.  I'm not talking about a weekly whole-house cleaning (I can't envision that, somehow), just having someone in occasionally to clean the kitchen and bathrooms.  When I'm on my hands and knees scrubbing the kitchen floor, the vision of a professional service sweeping in and leaving behind clean, gleaming surfaces beckons to me.  And yet, apart from the time we hired a cleaning service when we moved out of our rental house (it seemed a good investment to make sure we got our deposit back), I haven't succumbed to the temptation of professional house cleaners.  In part, this is due to entropy (the irony of doing hours of scrubbing because I'm too lazy to call and arrange the service does not escape me) and being worried about the quality of their work (will things get broken or damaged?  I know I can do this safely and carefully -- will they?), but I also have a strong discomfort with the prospect of handing off my cleaning to professionals.  It seems the epitome of bourgeois privilege to not have to do one's own cleaning.  Let's face it, even with all my careful talk about cleaning professionals, the term that comes to mind is . . . maid.  And I'm not ready to have a maid.

Teaching toward a better world

An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.
          -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Today we honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose tireless dedication to a world free of bigotry, poverty, and hatred helped bring us the civil rights movement.  I cannot do justice to the man or the movement, nor can I improve upon the many wise and profound words that have been said by and about him, so I will not try.  I want, instead, to take a moment to reflect on my own commitment to social change.

I sang for social change from 1989-1994.
(I'm in the middle in the back row.)

Looking back on 2011

Rabbit on our driveway (6/2011)

New Year's Day is traditionally a day of new beginnings.  I love new beginnings -- the excitement of starting fresh with the allure of pristine new projects.  Accomplishments are just over the horizon, glittering in the near distance.

But taking stock of where we are means pondering the past as well as looking to the future. Yet I'm less likely to mull over tasks completed than to dream of what is to come.  So I'm challenging myself to spend some time thinking back over what I've done.  Rather than compile a list of individual achievements (as in Lisa Call's 100 Accomplishments for 2011), I wanted to think about how my activities fit into my goals.  Perhaps I'm considering my cosmic footprint for 2011 (to borrow a concept from fellow blogger and academic Jill Kronstadt, whose blog is really worth reading).  So in the larger sense, what did I do in 2011?

The value of dissent

Contemplating the journey (Sagrada Familia by Antonio Gaudi, Barcelona)*

In my Psychology of Human Sexuality class on Wednesday, we had an intense discussion about sexual assault.  We talked about a number of commonly-held beliefs about sexual assault, including the issue of whether women are "asking" to be raped when they dress in sexy outfits or when they invite a man into their home.  One of the students (I'll call her Pat -- not her real name) was of the opinion that women should be held accountable for such choices.  She argued that women should be aware of how these behaviors will be viewed by others in our society, and stated baldly that she had less sympathy for a rape victim who had dressed revealingly.   I (along with other students) challenged her assumptions regarding the cultural meanings of any given behavior and made the case that nothing justifies assault.  She acknowledged some of our points but was unpersuaded and stuck to her opinion with considerable passion.

It would be easy for me to see this interchange as a teaching failure -- I failed to convince Pat to give up her belief.  I failed to persuade her that such beliefs reflect a cultural mythology that justifies rape through victim-blaming.  Certainly, I find such rape myths deeply problematic, part of a larger societal system that normalizes sexual assault and silences victims who believe they are somehow at fault for their victimization.  Yet while I am utterly opposed to Pat's beliefs about rape, and I strive to eradicate such myths at every opportunity, I still consider this discussion a success.

The Crowd that Makes the Renowned

The 2010 U.S. Professors of the Year who are also ΦBK at the Capitol Hill reception. Pictured left to right: ΦBK Associate Secretary Scott Lurding, Lendol Calder, Deborah C. Stearns, Andrew W. Kindon, Betsy A. Bowen, Mike Veseth, Frances Tiller Pilch and ΦBK Secretary John Churchill.

It's been a big year for me, a year full of accolades and recognition.  I was named the 2010 Maryland Professor of the Year by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE).  This is one of the most prestigious awards honoring professors, and the only national award for undergraduate teaching.  As a result, I was also featured in an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education and in a spot on MCTV, Montgomery College's television station.

The Life of a College Professor

Before I became a college professor, I didn't understand the broad scope of the professorial role.  I think it's hard to appreciate all that a job entails until one is immersed in it.  Even though my father is an academic, and I grew up hanging around his office, sitting in on his classes, and helping to administer exams and mailing out the journal he edited, I don't think I grasped all that professors do. 

Over the last week or so, for example:

The Meaning of Moaning

It's that time again -- V-Day season -- and I'm working with students and faculty to put together the Montgomery College production of Eve Ensler's "The Vagina Monologues", which will be on Wednesday, March 30 at 7:00pm in the Theatre Arts Arena at Montgomery College (Rockville, MD).  I'll be performing with a new piece for me, one I have wanted to perform for a while.  This monologue features a sex worker, a dominatrix who works exclusively with women, and who is obsessed with women's moans.  I particularly like the narrative because it includes a fascinating analysis of the source and meaning of moaning, which appeals to my intellectual nature.  At the end, she demonstrates an array of different types of moans.  This typically elicits howls of laughter from the audience and can be a show-stopper when done really well.  (But no pressure, right?)  I'm enjoying the challenge of working on this piece, but it also got me thinking about our reaction to women's moans.  Why do they generate such a strong response?

Our response to women's moaning is, in part, reflective of our broader cultural ambivalence regarding sexuality, and women's sexual pleasure in particular.  Our culture has considerable discomfort about public displays (or even discussions) of sexuality, so this litany of moans is bound to be a little uncomfortable for some.  Moreover, we have particularly ambivalent attitudes regarding women's sexual pleasure.  In many (but not all) cultures today, women are expected to experience sexual pleasure; indeed, part of a heterosexual man's sexual prowess is measured by his ability to bring his female partner to the height of ecstasy during lovemaking.  Yet, if she is too demonstrative in her pleasure, she risks being seen as wild, oversexed, loose, a bad girl: a slut.  (The remnants of the sexual double standard at work here.)  In other words, she should enjoy sex, but not too much.  So women's moaning is fraught with meaning, as it is presumably evidence of her sexual pleasure.  She mustn't moan too much or too loud, but some discreet moaning will be met with approval, even approbation . . . if it is genuine.

As a demonstration of pleasure, moaning is also suspect, since it can so easily be faked.  Women's sexual pleasure is often viewed with suspicion.  Given the significance of women's sexual pleasure and our general belief that women don't want or enjoy sex as much as men do, it is easy to understand why we think women may "fake" pleasure.  (This fear is not unwarranted:  One study [Elliott & Brantley, 1997] found that 60% of heterosexual, and 71% of lesbian or bisexual, college women reported faking orgasm at some point.  On the other hand, we could be suspect of men's pleasure, too, as 17% of heterosexual, and 27% of gay or bisexual college men reported that they had faked orgasm at some point.)  The classic scene from the film When Harry Met Sally in which Sally gives an extended performance of sexual pleasure that is obviously fake illustrates the cultural anxiety surrounding signs of women's sexual enjoyment. 



In her book Hard Core:  Power, Pleasure, and the "Frenzy of the Visible", Linda Williams (1989) argues that the central dilemma of pornography is how to represent women's sexual pleasure.  While (presumably authentic) male pleasure can be visibly demonstrated by erection and ejaculation, "the visual terms of the cinema do not allow the female protagonists of hard-core films to authenticate their pleasure" (Williams, 1989, p. 32).  While the woman may moan and writhe in the film, how do we know it's for real?  Hard-core films then rely on other cinematic mechanisms to putatively reveal women's sexual pleasure, often using displays of male pleasure as though they are intrinsically representative of female pleasure (hence, the use of the money shot).

So it is not surprising that the litany of moans given on stage during "The Vagina Monologues" would generate a strong reaction.  The monologue highlights the sexual pleasure of women, about which we already have considerable ambivalence (too much = slut;  too little = frigid).  The sexual pleasure is being given by a woman to another woman, with no man involved.  If women don't need men for sexual pleasure, that threatens men's status as the ultimate source of women's sexual pleasure and undermines one of the core pillars of masculinity (as defined in our culture).  The moans in the monologue are obviously fake, highlighting the concerns about the authenticity of women's sexual response (if she can fake it this convincingly on stage, then maybe all my lovers have been faking it too).  In other words, the monologue foregrounds anxieties about the authenticity of women's sexual response, which further undermines the degree to which a man can be sure of his sexual prowess, and hence, his masculinity.

With all that going on, of course we guffaw -- what else can we do?  Eve Ensler has found a way to get to the heart of our cultural anxieties surrounding sex and gender, but in such a way that we can laugh at ourselves.  The humor is deftly woven through the show, giving us a way to release some of our discomfort as our assumptions regarding women's sexuality are challenged and we learn about the diversity of women's experiences.  The show is a powerful experience, for performers and audience alike, but it is also a lot of fun.  I am, as always, struck by the capacity of V-Day to educate, transform, and entertain.  

I hope to see you at the show! 

References:
Elliott, L., & Brantley, C.  (1997).  Sex on campus.  New York: Random House. 

Williams, L.  (1989).  Hard core:  Power, pleasure, and the "frenzy of the visible."  Berkeley:  University of California Press.

Resistance or affirmation: What is queer?

On Saturday, I attended a conference at Morgan State University (in conjunction with BMore Proud) entitled Intersections:  Sexuality, Gender, Race and Ethnicity.  It was great to connect with others engaged in issues of sexuality, and I was part of a panel discussion on the complexities of sexual identity.  I talked about the fluidity of women's sexuality and how that presents challenges and opportunities for the traditional models of coming out in psychology and the GLBTQ community.  The other panelists included Dr. Andrea Brown, who talked about the intersection of race/ethnicity and sexual identity, with a particular emphasis on the role of the black church, and Genevieve Carminati, who discussed the (often ignored) role of social class in women's sexuality.  I think we did a good job of exploring the theme of the conference and I am always inspired by working with my fabulous colleagues.

The keynote speaker for the conference was Dr. Antonia Randolph, a sociologist from the University of Delaware who discussed her research on hip-hop and what it says about race, gender, and sexuality. Her main theme was that there are "queer" elements present in hip-hop that challenge the mainstream ideals of gender and sexuality.  She wasn't claiming that hip-hop artists are actually gay/lesbian/bi, nor even that they are necessarily going to be allies for GLBTQ issues.  She was merely claiming that there are themes within the hip-hop subculture that are not consistent with mainstream heteronormativity. 

This (infamous) kiss between Lil Wayne and Baby, for example, illustrates the strong affection male hip-hop artists openly express for each other.  These close bonds between men may be coded as similar to father-son relationships, as part of a broader construction of kinship among those in street culture.  Lyrics of hip-hop extol these male-male relationships, indicating their primacy even above the traditional family unit involving wives and mothers (fathers are typically absent in the world of hip-hop, replaced by the paternal care from those in the street culture). 

I don't know enough about hip-hop to say whether the themes Dr. Randolph identified are typical or not.  What struck me was the question of whether these are, in fact, "queer" -- that is, do they fundamentally challenge the values of mainstream culture?  At one level, she is correct to say that these are non-normative, in that American (heterosexual) men are generally prohibited from expressing strong affection for other men; this affection should be directed toward heterosexual relationships and those of the nuclear family which are supposed to be the most important and central bonds for men (and women). 

Yet at another level, the hip-hop narratives were completely consistent with the dominant paradigm of American masculinity.  These hip-hop artists glorify a masculine subculture in which they are independent from (and dominant over) women.  There is a long tradition of all-male enclaves, from the fraternity to the gang, and it has been commonplace for men to form strong bonds with each other, even though they may not always express their affection openly or directly.  While it is true that the nuclear family is strongly valued in our culture, there is also a tension between the vaunted masculine independence and the ties of the nuclear family.  To be a man is to be free and answer to no one, certainly not to a woman.  Express too much affection for your mother and you risk being labeled a "mama's boy"; for your girlfriend or wife, and you are "whipped."  Heterosexual men tread a delicate balance in our culture. They must establish heterosexual credentials by forming intimate bonds with women, but maintain their independence from women at the same time.  By rejecting the nuclear family bonds for those of the street culture, male hip-hop artists stake out their masculinity.  I'm a man, I can do as I like: I don't answer to my mother or my girlfriend or my wife. 

So we are left with the question of whether these close relationships among men in hip-hop are countercultural or culturally normative.  Do they resist cultural pressures, "queering" the text, or do they epitomize normative masculinity?  I suspect they may be both.  Cultural representations and practices can have multiple layers and convey divergent messages simultaneously.  Our attempt to resist a cultural norm may simultaneously affirm and reject that norm.  By prioritizing their relationships with other men, hip-hop artists may decenter the nuclear family as the putative core of a man's life.  By doing so, they highlight the tension that the nuclear family represents for constructions of masculinity, and they create an alternative kin network of the street that continues to reify and valorize traditional models of masculinity.  These relationships are a bit queer at one level, but they also serve to reinscribe the core values of gender performance at another level. 

Bibliography:

Randolph, A.  (2011, March).  Wayne loves Baby and other queer lessons from hip-hop:  Notes toward a race and sexuality research agenda.  Keynote presentation at Intersections: Sexuality, Gender, Race and Ethnicity, Baltimore, MD.

Brown, A., Carminati, G., & Stearns, D.  (2011, March).  Sexual identities:  Complex, contextual, and fluid.  Panel presented at Intersections: Sexuality, Gender, Race and Ethnicity, Baltimore, MD.

 

Women's Studies Silent Auction

The annual Montgomery College Women's Studies Program Scholarship Breakfast is on Wednesday, Mar. 9 (8-9:30am), which showcases the achievements of Women's Studies students and faculty.  In fact, this year, I am one of the faculty being honored -- I will be one of three faculty members receiving the On Her Shoulders We Stand Award.  This award is given to those who have contributed significantly to the Women's Studies Program, and I am tremendously pleased to be receiving this recognition.  It is truly an honor to receive an award for doing work that is so meaningful to me and that I love so well.  I am fortunate to have such wonderful colleagues and fabulous students, as well as an incredibly supportive partner, who doesn't complain about my long hours at work and shows up every year for our V-Day production.  Thanks, Q!

The event is also a fundraiser for the Women's Studies Scholarship fund, and I am coordinating the silent auction part of the breakfast.  Thanks to our generous donors, we have a wonderful array of items for the auction, and all proceeds from the auction go toward student scholarships.  The auction has a diverse range of items, including jewelry, ceramics, textiles, vintage items, stained glass, watercolors, housewares, and accessories.  If you see something you want, I am happy to arrange a proxy bid for you.  Just email me by Tuesday, Mar. 8 at 5pm to let me know what item you wish to bid on and how high you are willing to bid.  Click on the individual pictures to see more details about each item, including the estimated value and the minimum bid. 





My contributions to the silent auction included some of my own textile creations.

Set of four burp cloths (green and blue bubbles)

Set of four burp cloths (red stripe and bookbinder red)

Set of four autumn leaves placemats with matching tangerine linen napkins

Let's hope for enthusiastic bidding so that we can fund even more scholarships for next year!