Exploring Heterosexual Adults’ Endorsement of the Sexual Double Standard among Initiators of Consensually Nonmonogamous Relationship Behaviors

24Citations
Citations of this article
67Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Although the traditional sexual double standard (SDS) has been well documented, recent research has produced inconsistencies. Some scholars argue that the SDS may only exist for less traditional sexual behaviors, reflecting society’s progression toward equality. Thus, the current study examined the SDS when evaluating individuals initiating a variety of forms of consensual nonmonogamy (CNM; i.e., romantic relationships that are sexually and/or emotionally nonexclusive). Using a between-subject experimental paradigm, 793 heterosexual U.S. adults (338 men, 455 women) read one of eight vignettes depicting an individual initiating one of five behaviors with their romantic partner (polyamory, swinging, open relationships, group sex, role-playing) and subsequently judged the initiator using three judgments of interest (cognitive abilities, morality, and relationship satisfaction). The results indicated that women initiators were judged more favorably than were men initiators and that role-playing initiators were judged more favorably than were CNM initiators. Among CNM behaviors, those initiating swinging and group sex were judged more favorably than were those initiating polyamory and open relationships. These results are consistent with research highlighting inconsistencies in the SDS in contemporary society and demonstrate the endorsement of a relationship double standard. Implications regarding gender equality as well as the promotion of inclusive sexual education are discussed.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

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(3–4), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0866-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free