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

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.

What same-sex marriage represents

It's the end of June, and LGBTQ Pride Month is coming to a close.  Last week, I was pleased to attend the opening of the new exhibit at Montgomery College, Portraits of Life: LGBT Stories of Being as well as a day-long consortium organized by MC Pride and Allies entitled How Do You Do It?, bringing together students, faculty, staff, and administrators from a number of local colleges and universities to discuss best practices for creating a welcoming campus for LGBTQ students, faculty, and staff.  Both were wonderful events and I am proud that we are making a visible commitment to support the LGBTQ members of our community.  In doing so, we take a stand for a more equal society that does not discriminate based on sexuality or gender expression.


In many ways, we have made tremendous strides toward that equal society, but that progress is mixed with strong backlash, as well.  The recent Pride image of a rainbow Oreo posted by Kraft Foods on Facebook reveals the mainstream corporate support for the LGBTQ community, but it also elicited a stream of anti-gay commentary.  This year has seen similar conflict over same-sex marriage in the United States.  In a historic first, President Obama and Vice-President Biden both came out in support of legal recognition for same-sex marriage (the first sitting president of the U.S. to do so).  However, this endorsement followed the passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships in North Carolina, the 30th state in the U.S. to pass such an amendment. 

In his keynote speech at How Do You Do It?, Luke Jensen (University of Maryland) shared his lifetime of experiences in the trenches as an LGBTQ advocate.  As he marked various components of the struggle (HIV/AIDS, hate crimes, bullying, invisibility), I was struck by how far we have come over the years . . . and how far we still have to go.  For example, attitudes towards same-sex marriage have clearly changed in recent years.  While only 35% of Americans favored legalizing same-sex marriage in 2001, 47% indicated support in 2012, according to Pew research polls.  A recent ABC poll (April 2012) found that 53% of Americans favored legalizing same-sex marriage.  In short, polls indicate increasing support for legalizing same-sex marriage, but the country is still split on the issue, with strong feelings on both sides.   

Interrogating Museum Exhibits

I just gave a talk at the AFACCT conference with some of my colleagues about our experience with the Smithsonian Faculty Fellowship program at Montgomery College.  It was a wonderfully interdisciplinary panel, reflecting the diversity of perspectives in our SFF cohort (Marcia Bronstein, English/ESL [moderator]; Genevieve Carminati, English and Women's Studies; Marissa Prosser, Anthropology; Michael Tims, Biology; and me, Psychology).  We each discussed the museum assignments we created for our students and how that facilitated their learning as well as how that reflected the various communities that interconnect through the SFF program.  I talked about what I learned from the museum curators about reading objects and images.

Another reminder of why I love my job

My Psychology of Human Sexuality class today included discussions of the following topics:

The eye of the beholder: Interpreting art

"Art is not meant to be merely decorative or beautiful; instead, it can be a question, an argument, a proposal, a resolution." -- Hye Yeon Nam


Last weekend, I took some of my Psychology of Women students to see Portraiture Now: Asian American Portraits of Encounter at the National Portrait Gallery.  It was an interesting and thought-provoking exhibit and we had a number of conversations about the potential meanings of the various works.  We were often left with many unanswered questions.  I was particularly struck by a four-part video self-portrait by Hye Yeon Nam, Walking, Eating, Drinking, and Sitting.  We stayed for some time in front of these pieces, talking about what we noticed, what feelings they evoked, and what they might mean. 

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.

 

Why we need better sex education

Every semester, I teach a course in the Psychology of Human Sexuality at Montgomery College. And every semester, I become more convinced that our system of sexuality education is dangerously inadequate. But wait, you say -- most public schools include sex education and there is so much sexual information readily available today, so surely students are well aware of the basics regarding sexuality.

Tell that to the young man who never had any sex education before my class. His parents opted him out of every aspect of sex education at school. That is their right, but they also failed to provide any significant discussion of issues surrounding sexuality at home, beyond the basic message of "don't have sex." He was so grateful for the opportunity to have access to real sexuality education in my class.

Tell that to the young woman who was sure there was something wrong with her because she couldn't have an orgasm through penile-vaginal intercourse. She spent years faking orgasms because she didn't feel comfortable talking to her partners about her inability to climax. For the first time, she is talking to her partner openly about how she responds sexually and exploring new possibilities for herself and her partner.

Tell that to the many students who were sexually assaulted, abused, or raped, but have never told anyone about it because they were sure it was their fault, or it wasn't "really" rape, or because they thought no one would believe them. They still suffer with feelings of fear, mistrust, anger, and doubt that can have a corrosive influence on their sexuality and intimate relationships. They tell me their stories, finally beginning to believe that what happened to them wasn't just "bad sex" and that they didn't deserve it.

Tell that to the students who have never learned effective relationship skills. The chapter on love and communication is revelatory -- they realize that they have routinely been using destructive communication tactics like stonewalling, criticism, and defensiveness, and suddenly the failure of their last relationship makes sense. Most report that they have never been taught communication skills in school, and few can identify even one couple in their lives who could act as a role model for a happy, successful relationship. They walk out of my class with concrete, scientifically-validated strategies for more satisfying and enduring relationships.

This doesn't even include the students who got misinformation about STDs through abstinence-only sex "education", who never learned about the full range of contraceptive methods available (or how to use them correctly), and who couldn't label basic sexual and reproductive anatomy accurately. We need to do a better job of educating young people about sexuality. We are leaving them dangerously ignorant and misinformed, without the knowledge and skills they need to make safe, satisfying sexual choices.

I'm cautiously optimistic about the future, though. President Obama has cut funding for abstinence-only sex "education" (or what one of my friends calls "ignorance-only" sex education), and the new appropriations bill focuses on funding effective sexuality education. In other words, there is a pool of money available to fund programs that have been "proven through rigorous evaluation to delay sexual activity, increase contraceptive use (without increasing sexual activity), reduce the transmission of sexually transmitted infections or reduce teenage pregnancy" [from the 2010 appropriations bill via Newsweek's blog, The Gaggle]. I am pleased to see an approach that cares about the empirical evidence of efficacy in sexuality education. This means that we will be shifting toward more comprehensive sexuality education, which is effective at reducing rates of teen pregnancy, and away from abstinence-only sex education, which has been receiving federal funds since 1981, despite its failure to reduce adolescent pregnancy or delay sexual activity.

But sexuality education needs to be more than just pregnancy and STI prevention. We need to provide the tools to develop sexual lives that are both safe and satisfying. Certainly, we need to provide effective, age-appropriate sexuality education about issues related to reproduction and health. But young people also need to know how to enhance pleasure and build strong relationships. They need education that builds sexual agency and effective communication skills -- not only will that help reduce unwanted pregnancy and the transmission of STIs, but it would also be an important step in our progress toward greater gender equality. Until those lessons are part of every adolescent's education, I'll continue to hear the stories that are proof of the inadequacy of our current system of sex education. And I'll continue to do my best to provide the kind of sexuality education I think every person needs and deserves.

Sex and cookies

Yesterday's Psychology Brown Bag was great fun, as always. I posed the question of why gender equality and feminism are associated with higher sexual satisfaction for men and women than male dominance (e.g., patriarchy). There were great suggestions and questions from the students and faculty in attendance. We talked about the effect of gender roles, sexual scripts, education, relationship factors, communication, and more. We discussed the continued impact of gender roles in the U.S. -- for example, do heterosexual women feel comfortable asking men out, or are men still doing most of the initiating? It was a terrific discussion, and my closing comment was that they should go forth, be feminist, and have great sex. Better living through science. ;)

We also had light refreshments, because I think food makes for better conversation. Some of it I buy at the grocery store -- fruit, sunflower seeds, hummus, carrots, chips. Some of the food I cook. I usually make a batch of pasta with basil pesto -- this is the pesto we make from our own garden, according to my partner's family recipe, and it gets rave reviews. And then I bake some cookies or cupcakes or quickbread, as I'm a big fan of sweets.

By far, the most popular cookie I have ever made (and I've been doing this for a long time) is Seven Layer Cookies. I've had people propose marriage after tasting these cookies. I often make them for events because, in addition to being tasty, they are quick and easy to make. I got this recipe from my friend Becka in high school. She wrote it on the back of a flyer for Duff's Business Institute (which encouraged you to make a collect call to get career advice -- always suspicious); strangely enough, this flyer fits into my recipe card file perfectly. I made the cookies with Becka at one point, and her main advice was to make sure to get the condensed milk into the corners of the pan. I've come up with a few additional suggestions over the years -- it's easier to use boxed graham cracker crumbs instead of mushing up graham crackers into crumbs, for example, and greasing the pan facilitates the cookie removal after baking.

So many people have asked me for this recipe that I figured I would share it with all of you. Enjoy!

Seven Layer Cookies
1 1/2 cup graham cracker crumbs
1 stick margarine or butter
6 oz. semi-sweet chocolate chips
6 oz. butterscotch chips
14 oz. sweetened condensed milk (not evaporated milk)
1 1/2 cup coconut (I use the sweetened kind that comes in a bag, not a can)
1 1/2 cup chopped walnuts (if you chop them small, they will be more likely to stick to the cookies and not fall off) [I consider this ingredient optional -- I often make these cookies without walnuts and they are just as tasty]

Grease the bottom and sides of a 9 X 13 inch pan. Melt the margarine or butter, and mix with the graham cracker crumbs. Press the mixture into the bottom of the pan, making sure it covers the entire pan evenly. Sprinkle on the coconut, then the chips, making sure that they are evenly spread over the crust. Then pour on the condensed milk so that it covers everything (don't forget the corners!). Sprinkle on nuts. Place in oven (350 degrees F) for 30 minutes, until the top is light brown (the edges will be dark brown, crystallized, almost burnt looking). Take out, let cool. Cut into bars with a sharp knife. It's easier to get the cookies out of the pan if you cut around the edges of the pan first, and then cut into bars. These are pretty rich, so you might want to cut them into small bars (I usually cut them into 24 or 32 pieces, depending on my mood). If there are any left, store in an airtight container.

So now you can have satisfying sex and cookies afterwards! Just don't get crumbs in the bed.

Patriarchy does not equal Pleasure: Sexism Makes for Bad Sex (Pt. 1)

Courtesy of www.archives.gov

I'm in the midst of preparing for my upcoming Psychology Brown Bag discussion this Wednesday at Montgomery College, and I thought I would put some of the research together for those of you who can't attend. I'm starting with the claim that patriarchy (cultural systems that give men greater power than women) is likely to result in decreased sexual satisfaction, as compared to cultures in which men and women have greater equality. A bold claim? Perhaps so, but I've got the data to back it up.

In a survey of older men and women (40-80 years of age) from twenty-nine different nations, Laumann et al. (2006) found that men and women in countries with more gender equality (such as Western countries) reported greater sexual satisfaction than those in male-dominant countries (such as those in East Asia and the Middle East). In the Western nations, two-thirds of men and women reported that their sexual relationships were satisfying. In Middle Eastern countries, fifty percent of men and thirty-eight percent of women stated that they were satisfied with their sex lives (although there was some variability among the nations in this cluster), and in East Asian nations, approximately one-quarter of men and women reported positive sexual satisfaction. In other words, older adults living in more patriarchal nations reported lower sexual satisfaction than those in countries with greater gender equality, and this was true for both women and men. In other words, patriarchy doesn't just diminish women's sexual satisfaction, it makes sex worse for men, as well.

It is also worth noting that in all three of the cultural clusters, men reported greater sexual satisfaction than women, although the survey found greater gender differences in the male-dominant countries than in those with greater gender equality. "This pattern suggests that the type of gender regime is important for gender differences in sexual well-being, but true parity remains an ideal even in countries where beliefs about gender equality are more widespread." (Laumann et al., 2006, p. 158). Western nations may be more egalitarian, but they haven't reached true sexual equity yet. (We already knew that, right?)

Within any one country, some hold more patriarchal beliefs than others. If male dominance is bad for sex, then we would predict that feminists would have better sex lives. Of course, this flies in the face of widely held stereotypes that feminists are ugly, undesirable, and anti-sex. To the extent that feminism is viewed as anti-male, some might believe that feminists would have trouble in heterosexual relationships (Rudman & Phelan, 2007). However, Schick, Zucker, and Bay-Cheng (2008) found that female college students who more strongly endorsed feminist beliefs had a greater sense of their own sexual feelings (sexual subjectivity) and enhanced sexual motivation, both of which produced increased sexual satisfaction. In both college students and a non-student sample, Rudman and Phelan (2007) found that heterosexual women reported greater relationship health and sexual satisfaction when they perceived their male partner to be feminist, and men reported greater sexual satisfaction to the extent that they perceived their female partner to be feminist. Rather than impeding sexual satisfaction, these studies indicate that feminism enhances sexual satisfaction. (Of course, we need to replicate these studies and have more diverse samples and measures to be sure of their results, but still, the data are encouraging.)

So there you have it. Patriarchy is bad for sex and gender equality is good for sex. Now, to the interesting question -- why? I have my own ideas, which I'll be discussing on Wednesday, 1-2pm at Montgomery College in Rockville, MD. I'd love to hear your thoughts, though, so feel free to post a comment.

References:

Laumann, E. O., Paik, A., Glasser, D. B., Kang, J-H., Wang, T., Levinson, B., Moreira, E. D., Nicolosi, A., Gingell, C. (2006). A cross-national study of subjective sexual well-being among older women and men: Findings from the Global Study of Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, p.145-161.

Rudman, L. A., Phelan, J. E. (2007). The interpersonal power of feminism: Is feminism good for romantic relationships? Sex Roles, 57, 787-799.

Schick, V. R., Zucker, A. N., Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2008). Safer, better sex through feminism: The role of feminist ideology in women’s sexual well-being. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 225-232.

Grave statuary

Why is it that so many of the statues in cemeteries depict female figures? From our meanderings in a cemetery in Montreal, we saw a number of beautiful examples of statuary, particularly female figures. We saw this one when we first came into the cemetery, and were struck by its lovely lines and the eloquent way it depicted grief -- "how original!" we thought. Then we saw several others with the same design, and figured there was some mortuary catalogue with this headstone as one of the designs. *Sigh* It lost some of its eloquence after that. But it's still quite pretty.



This one had a bit of added whimsy, since someone replaced her bow with a stuffed animal (honestly, it wasn't me!).

And, of course, angels could be of either sex (or sexless), but seem to be depicted as female or feminine in many cases:


I love the way that metal gains additional texture with age -- she almost seems to be weeping. I'm not sure what the significance of the large feather is, though.

So, why are women keepers of the dead -- why are we charged with grieving and mourning and watching over the graves? Is this found in all cultures?

Stripping for PETA

This is just gratuitous and inappropriate. I don't know what is more disturbing, the stripping itself, the fact that she's dressed like a schoolgirl, or the overly sexual narration. In response to protest letters, PETA justifies this by saying that their provocative actions (like naked marches) bring more attention to these important issues. They don't get the distinction between nudity and the stereotypic objectification going on in this striptease quiz (trust me, I have no problems with stripping, but this use of it is unnecessary and insulting). There is also an "end justifies the means" thread to their argument that I find very troubling.

I sent this quiz to a colleague in Women's Studies and her response was that sometimes it seems like we are "swimming backwards through thick sludge."

Don't mess with old women

Check out this video (contributed by one of my students).

Hmmm . . .

My favorite line from my classes this week was one I came up with. We were talking about women's and men's attire in my Psychology of Women class, and one of the students talked about how she likes to wear "wifebeater" shirts. I stopped the class and asked them to think about that term, and whether they were comfortable with such a casual use of the term "wifebeater." I asked if they would wear a garment that got called a "child molester" or "pedophile" -- I think I'll wear the green pedophile today.

They cracked up at that, and told me I should consider a career in comedy. But they also admitted it was a good point, and that they'd never thought about it that way before.

I love teaching.

Be the man!

Wouldn't you like to be the man in bed?

Boys will be boys = bad students...apparently

From News of the Weird:

Doug Anglin, 17, filed a formal complaint with the U.S. Department of Education against Milton (MA) High School, which he said discriminates against boys by giving better grades to students who "sit down, follow orders, and listen to what (teachers and administrators) say." Anglin told a Boston Globe reporter, "Men naturally rebel against this."

Ummm . . . ok . . . what are schools supposed to do to restore putative gender equity, then? Perhaps boys should get good grades for running around naked in the playground and giving the teachers the finger.