Invariance of the Sexual Double Standard Scale: A Cross-Cultural Study

Abstract

The Sexual Double Standard (SDS) is an instrument used to judge sexual behavior, in which men are usually granted greater sexual freedom, while the same sexual behavior is condemned in women. Culture can be a relevant variable for the SDS. Therefore, we have examined the measurement invariance of the Sexual Double Standard Scale (SDSS) across the Spanish and Colombian populations, comparing this phenomenon by country and gender. The scale comprises two factors: sexual freedom and sexual shyness. The sample consisted of 1832 heterosexual adults (46.3% men, 53.7% women), 54.3% of whom were Spanish and 45.7% Colombian. Strong invariance was found. The reliability values were good for country and gender. Men and women from both countries supported greater freedom for themselves compared to the other gender. Furthermore, Spanish women, unlike their Colombian counterparts, supported greater sexual shyness for men. Thus, what some authors have labeled as a "reverse sexual double standard" seems to emerge.

Typologies of Sexual Double Standard Adherence in Spanish Population

“…Nonetheless, although women first claimed gender equality, a marked prevalence for adhering to the woman-favorable typology appeared for the younger generation as a possible reaction to lack of sexual power (Milhausen & Herold, 2002), and in accordance with in-group favoritism (Greenwald et al, 2002;Rudman & Goodwin, 2004). This result falls in line with others obtained using samples of Spanish females (Álvarez-Muelas et al, 2019;Sánchez-Fuentes et al, 2020), which could be interpreted as the egalitarian ideology being linked with hierarchy-attenuating attitudes and behaviors (Ho & Kteily, 2020), but inequality could encourage in-group favoritism polarization (i.e., man-favorable and woman-favorable typologies).…”

“…As a result of the empowerment of women and their growing concern about, and awareness of, sexual violence, woman-favorable SDS has emerged (Kettrey, 2016;Milhausen & Herold, 2002), which is the opposite to man-favorable SDS. Indeed woman-favorable SDS defends more sexual freedom for women than for men (Álvarez-Muelas et al, 2019;Papp et al, 2015;Sakaluk & Milhausen 2012;Sánchez-Fuentes et al, 2020;Thompson et al, 2018). To date, studies have not yet examined either the prevalence of this SDS typology or its relation with sexual health (e.g., with sexual aggression/ victimization).…”

Validation of the Orgasm Rating Scale in Context of Sexual Relationships of Gay and Lesbian Adults

“…The number of sexual partners also had a significant effect on the subjective experience of orgasm in comparisons by sex in the gay group and by sexual orientation, in men. Generally, it is men who tend to report a higher number of sexual partners, both in gay [ 30 , 66 ] and heterosexual [ 66 , 79 ] populations—a fact that could respond to the phenomenon of sexual double standard (see Álvarez-Muelas et al [ 36 , 80 ] and Endendijk et al [ 81 ]). Finally, the method used to obtain the last orgasm in sexual relationships with another person turned out to be a significant variable in the comparison by sex within the group of gay people, and by sexual orientation, in men.…”

Análisis de la victimización/agresión sexual a través de las tipologías de adhesión al doble estándar sexual en población general

“…En esta línea, destaca la actitud del doble estándar sexual (DES), que alude a la evaluación de un comportamiento sexual de forma diferente en función de si lo realiza un hombre o una mujer (Fasula et al, 2014). Tradicionalmente, el DES asume mayor libertad sexual para el hombre que para la mujer (Álvarez-Muelas et al, 2019;Guo, 2019;Sánchez-Fuentes et al, 2020;Sierra et al, 2018). El DES que resulta favorable para el hombre se ha relacionado con agresividad sexual del hombre hacia la mujer (Moyano et al, 2017;Noriega et al, 2020;Sierra, Gutiérrez-Quintanilla et al, 2009;Teitelman et al, 2013) y con el apoyo de actitudes a favor de la violación hacia la mujer (Jamshed & Kamal, 2019;Lee et al, 2010;Mittal et al, 2017;Moyano et al, 2017;Sierra, Costa, & Ortega, 2009;Wanfield, 2018), constituyendo un predictor de las mismas (Sierra et al, 2010).…”