Search

Sociocultural and biological frameworks suggest a Sexual Advice Double Standard (SADS; wherein heterosexual men are encouraged to have causal sex more than heterosexual women are) motivated by intransigent factors (e.g., patriarchy or evolved dispositions). Alternatively, people generally perceive casual sex as riskier for women, who may be discouraged from sex to protect them from stigma and danger (Rudman et al. 2013). If so, manipulating perceived risk to reduce or reverse the costs of casual sex for men and for women should eliminate or reverse the SADS, respectively. Results investigating American adults ( N = 180) supported risk assessment's explanatory power. When costs to both partners were mild, the SADS was eliminated, but when costs to men were higher, women were urged to have casual sex more than men were. The SADS emerged only when costs to women were higher. The findings have implications for gender equality and sexuality theories, but also practitioners (e.g., therapists, sex educators, and physicians). The SADS is far from intractable, but believing in rigid sexual double standards creates psychological conflict in women caught between motives to be seen as moral and sexually desirable, which negatively impacts their sexual health (e.g., Katz and Farrow 2000). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cultures of honor, such as Turkey, prioritize defending individual and family reputations, but in gender-specific ways (Nisbett and Cohen 1996). Men maintain honor via reputations for toughness, aggression, control over women, and avenging insults. Women maintain honor through obedience to men, sexual modesty, and religious piety. Honor beliefs support women's subordination, justifying violence against them (Sev'er and Yurdakul, Violence against Women, 7, 964-998, 2001) and therefore should be challenged. Understanding honor beliefs' ideological correlates may inform such efforts. We hypothesized that benevolent sexism, a subjectively favorable system-justifying ideology, would more strongly, positively predict Turkish women's (versus men's) honor beliefs; whereas hostile sexism, which is openly antagonistic toward women, would more strongly, positively predict Turkish men's (versus women's) honor beliefs. Additionally, due to justifications for gender inequality embedded in Islamic religious teachings, we expected Islamic religiosity to positively predict honor beliefs for both genders. A convenience sample of Turkish undergraduates (313 women and 122 men) in Ankara completed the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, Religious Orientation Scale, and Honor Endorsement Index. Regression analyses revealed that benevolent (but not hostile) sexism positively predicted women's honor beliefs, whereas hostile (but not benevolent) sexism positively predicted men's honor beliefs. Islamic religiosity positively predicted honor beliefs for both genders, but (unexpectedly) did so more strongly for men than women. We suggest that combating benevolent sexism and promoting feminist interpretations of Islamic religiosity may help to empower Turkish women to challenge honor beliefs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present research examines how romantic relationship experience and age predict ambivalent sexism in adolescents. We measured sexist beliefs and romantic relationship experience in a large sample of Spanish adolescents ( N = 1447), ranging from 12 to 19 years of age. Consistent with prior research, age predicted less sexist beliefs. Controlling for the effects of age, relationship experience predicted increased hostile sexism in girls and increased benevolent sexism in boys. Additionally, younger boys (12–14 years) with greater relationship experience tended to endorse hostile sexism more strongly. The general decline in sexism over the course of adolescence masks a contrasting effect of romantic experience, which suggests that heterosexual adolescents’ desire to attract romantic partners may foster, rather than reduce, sexism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a study that examined the relationship of education and religiosity to hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes toward women and men. Details of the assessment using the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and the Ambivalence Towards Men Inventory; Generalizations about religion and education; Differentiation between benevolent and hostile sexism.