19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      THE SEXUAL DOUBLE STANDARD AND ADOLESCENT PEER ACCEPTANCE.

      1 , 1
      Social psychology quarterly

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The belief that women and men are held to different standards of sexual conduct is pervasive in contemporary American society. According to the sexual double standard, boys and men are rewarded and praised for heterosexual sexual contacts, whereas girls and women are derogated and stigmatized for similar behaviors. Although widely held by the general public, research findings on the sexual double standard remain equivocal, with qualitative studies and early attitudinal surveys generally finding evidence of the double standard and more recent experimental vignette designs often failing to find similar results. In this study, we extend prior research by directly measuring the social status of sexually permissive youth. We use data collected from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health to relate adolescents' self-reported numbers of sexual partners to a network measure of peer acceptance. Results suggest that the association between lifetime sexual partnerships and peer status varies significantly by gender, such that greater numbers of sexual partners are positively correlated with boys' peer acceptance, but negatively correlated with girls' peer acceptance. Moreover, the relationship between boys' sexual behaviors and peer acceptance is moderated by socioeconomic origins; sexually permissive boys from disadvantaged backgrounds are predicted to have more friendships than permissive boys from more advantaged backgrounds. Our results thus support the existence of an adolescent sexual double standard and suggest that sexual norms vary by both gender and socioeconomic origins.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Multiple Imputation after 18+ Years

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Sexual double standards: a review and methodological critique of two decades of research.

            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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Gender and Crime: Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Soc Psychol Q
                Social psychology quarterly
                0190-2725
                0190-2725
                Jun 2009
                : 72
                : 2
                Affiliations
                [1 ] The Pennsylvania State University.
                Article
                NIHMS600220
                10.1177/019027250907200205
                25484478
                bae2e81a-33b3-417d-af74-be965f0747d6

                Comments

                Comment on this article