Content area
Full Text
A review of 30 studies published since 1980 found evidence for the continued existence of sexual double standards: different standards of sexual permissiveness for women and men. Experimental studies have included predominantly White North American college students; ethnographies, focus group and interview studies, and linguistic analyses have included more diverse samples. Studies show that sexual double standards are influenced by situational and interpersonal factors (e.g., the target's age, level of relationship commitment, and number of partners), and that double standards are local constructions, differing across ethnic and cultural groups. This review discusses methodological issues, including the strengths and limitations of quantitative and qualitative approaches. It also discusses implications for women's high-risk sexual behavior and sexual identity, and suggests directions for future research.
Traditionally, men and women have been subjected to different "rules" guiding sexual behavior. Women were stigmatized for engaging in any sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage, whereas for men such behavior was expected and rewarded. Boys had to "sow their wild oats," but girls were warned that a future husband "won't buy the cow if he can get the milk for free" (Crawford & Unger, 2000, p. 288). Women were faced with a Madonnawhore dichotomy: They were either pure and virginal or promiscuous and easy.
These rules have been the subject of considerable research. Reiss (1967) conducted the first large-scale and systematic study of sexual double standards. Although others had studied sexual behavior, Reiss focused on attitudes toward "various degrees of heterosexual permissiveness embodied in our premarital standards" (p. 6). His study included random samples of students from five selected high schools and colleges as well as a nationally representative sample of 1550 adults. His survey assessed attitudes toward "premarital sexual permissiveness" and their demographic and sociocultural correlates, such as age, race, social class, religion, and family characteristics.
Reiss (1960, 1964) classified attitudes toward premarital sexual activity into four general categories: abstinence (premarital intercourse considered wrong for both sexes), double standard (males considered to have greater right to premarital intercourse), permissiveness without affection (premarital intercourse considered right for both sexes regardless of emotional involvement), and permissiveness with affection (premarital intercourse considered right for both sexes if part of a committed relationship). Subtypes were delineated within each category. For example, within the double...