See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/38039053

Doing Gender in Sex and Sex Research

Article  in  Archives of Sexual Behavior · October 2009

DOI: 10.1007/s10508-009-9565-8 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

34 676

1 author:

Ine Vanwesenbeeck
Rutgers, Expert Centre for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
104 PUBLICATIONS   2,844 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PhD Gendered Sexuality View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ine Vanwesenbeeck on 08 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Arch Sex Behav (2009) 38:883–898
DOI 10.1007/s10508-009-9565-8
INVITED ESSAY
Doing Gender in Sex and Sex Research
Ine Vanwesenbeeck
Published online: 27 October 2009
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract Gender is central to sexuality, and vice versa, but
there are a number of difficulties with the treatment of gender
in sex research. Apparently, it is hard to find a balance be-
tween two conflicting needs. First, obviously, it is necessary
to make distinctions between women and men, for political as
well as research-technical and theoretical reasons. A second
requirement, at odds with the first one, is the necessity to
understand gender and its relation to sexuality and the body as
much more complex than simplistically referring to two sets
of individuals. This is all the more necessary when one real-
izes the possible drawbacks of exaggerating the differences
between the sexes (in particular when they are biologically
explained), because of stereotyping, stigmatizing, and expec-
tancy confirmatory processes. This essay identifies and dis-
cusses 10 difficulties in the treatment of gender in sex research,
reflects on their origins, and reviews theory and evidence with
the aim to (1) consider the relative strength of gender/sex as an
explanatory variable compared to other factors and processes
explaining differences between men and women on a number
of sexual aspects, (2) inform an understanding of gender and its
relation to sexuality as an ongoing, open-ended, multi-deter-
mined, situated, interactional process, with the body as a third
player, and (3) argue in favor of a nuanced, well-balanced treat-
ment of gender in sex research.
This essay is based on the Presidential Address, International Academy
of Sex Research, Leuven, Belgium, July 9–12, 2008.
I. Vanwesenbeeck (&)
Rutgers Nisso Groep, P.O. Box 9022, 1071 GD Utrecht,
The Netherlands
e-mail: i.vanwesenbeeck@rng.nl
Keywords Gender
Heterosexuality
Sex differences

Social interaction
Introduction
Gender is central to sexuality and vice versa. As a consequence,
gender is a much debated and an extensively studied subject in
sexology, most notably in relation to a number of specific life-
size fields of research. Important is the work on gender in
relation to male and female homosexuality. Here, it is, for in-
stance, shown that masculinity is linked to lesbianism and femi-
ninity to male homosexuality in some contexts but not in others
(Peplau & Garnetts, 2000; Sandfort, 2005). Overall, it may be
concluded that the relationship between gender and homosex-
uality is strong but complex, and historically and culturally var-
iable. Another huge area of sexological research, to which gen-
der is pivotal, is the study of intersex, gender dysphoria, and
transgenderism, an area which, without doubt, shows as much
complexity surrounding gender as that of homosexuality does.
Most often, however, gender is studied in relation to men
and women in heterosexuality. Gender and heterosexuality are
strongly and mutually dependent and reinforcing of each other.
The relationship between gender and heterosexuality is so basic
and comprehensive, that it has been proposed to use the phrase
‘‘heterogender’’ as referring to ‘‘the asymmetrical stratification
of the sexes in relation to the historically varying institutions of
patriarchal heterosexuality’’ (Ingraham, 1996, p. 169).
Since there is no such thing as a free lunch, it is in particular
in the study of men and women in heterosexuality that the
treatment of gender in sex research shows a number of diffi-
culties. Heterosexuality is broadly defined here, referring to all
sexually inspired social interaction between women and men
(alone or in groups), and the (institutionalized) normativity
surrounding it. In this essay, I will identify and discuss 10
123
884
difficulties in the treatment of gender in (hetero)sex research
and review theory and evidence illustrating them. I do not
pretend to be exhaustive in this review; I will only pull some
tracks through the available literature. References will be
mostly to articles published after 2000, except for some earlier
key publications. In addition, I will present and illustrate an
interactional, contextual, process-oriented perspective on gen-
dered sexual behavior. The aim of this exercise is threefold: (1)
to discuss the explaining strength of gender (or sex) in sexu-
ality, relative to other explaining variables, (2) to consider
gender and sexuality as ongoing social processes, and (3) to
argue for a nuanced, well-balanced treatment of gender in sex
research.
‘‘Gender’’ versus ‘‘Sex’’
The first difficulty pertains to the fact that in sex research (as well
as in other disciplines), ‘‘gender’’ is often used when actually bio-
logical ‘‘sex’’ is referred to, i.e., concrete, embodied men and
women. Looking at the evolution of gender as a concept (see
Moi, 2005), the following development can be seen. The dis-
tinction between sex and gender in the English language was first
developed in the 1950s and 1960s by psychiatrists working with
intersexed and transsexual patients. Then, in the 1970s, the con-
cept was adapted by feminist scholars as an antidote against
biological determinism, or as Moi (2005) formulated it, ‘‘as a
barricade thrown up against the insidious pervasiveness of sex’’
(p. 15). In particular, Gayle Rubin introduced her ‘‘sex/gender
system’’ in 1975, with gender being ‘‘the oppressive result of a
social production process,’’ referring to cultural femininity and
masculinity as opposed to concrete female and male bodies, to
the social level, to social norms, as well as to personal identity on
the level of the individual.
Gradually, however, ‘‘gender’’ lost its original meaning. The
word is now used more and more to simply refer to concrete men
and women. All sorts of forms and questionnaires routinely
require us to tick the box for female or male gender. And in
academia many of us, myself included, have used ‘‘gender’’
when actually ‘‘sex’’ is meant in our studies and publications.
Moi (2005), in discussing this subject matter, explains it, at least
for the U.S., with the observation that the good thing about the
word gender is that it provides for avoiding the word ‘‘sex,’’
something very much welcomed in what she calls ‘‘the latest
puritanical backlash’’ (p. 87). Specifically in sex research, dom-
inated as many other disciplines by the English language, the
possible confusion between sex as referring to males and fe-
males and sex as referring to sexuality may also have motivated
the popularity of the word gender. Particularly bitter in this
development is, however, that gender is now often used in ways
it was meant to fight in the first place, i.e., with a biological
determinist perspective. To Gayle Rubin and others, this is
probably a thorn in the flesh; to me, it sometimes is. The
123
Arch Sex Behav (2009) 38:883–898
evolution of the meaning of ‘‘gender’’ continues to be the subject
of feminist debate (e.g., Crawford & Fox, 2007; Zurbriggen &
Sherman, 2007).
Generally, a shift from modern to postmodern approaches of
the concept can be seen, with emphasis shifting from sociali-
zation to performativity, from difference to diversity, etcetera
(cf. Cameron, 2005). The phrase ‘‘doing gender’’ is one illus-
tration of this, although my point here will be that these changes
have met with too little response in academia in its entirety,
specifically in sex research. In any case, the meaning of the con-
cept of gender seems to have evolved into something more gen-
eral than originally meant, referring to (and this is in the words of
Jackson, 2006): ‘‘All aspects of the distinction and division
between male and female’’ (p. 106). In this essay, I will use the
words sex and gender interchangeably where they basically
refer to the same global division, but either one or the other
where specifically applicable.
Gender and Sexuality
A second difficulty relates to the fact that gender is mostly seen
as preceding and determining of sexuality, despite at least some
claims of gender and sexuality being mutually related in a two-
way process. Throughout history, there have been different epis-
temological arguments in relation to gender and sexuality. Rich-
ardson (2007), an English sociologist, recently described the
evolution of the understanding of the relationship between gen-
der and sexuality. She illustrates that the prioritization of gender
over sexuality has been dominant throughout, although she also
points to Freud and MacKinnon (remarkably combined) as two
examples of the exceptions who saw it the other way around, i.e.,
sexuality as the basic driving force and thereby constitutive of
gender. Be this as it is, it’s Richardson’s crucial assertion that
now has come the time to acknowledge that gender and sexu-
ality are inherently co-dependent. Others before her (e.g., Bur-
man, 2005; Connell, 1985; Jackson, 2006) also argued that gen-
der and sexuality are fundamentally conflated categories, funda-
mentally intersected, inextricably interwoven, ‘‘mutually inform-
ing.’’ In particular, the relationship between gender and hetero-
sexuality is tight and reciprocal. Heterosexuality is a key-site for
the intersection between gender and sexuality.
Moreover, Richardson stresses that the relationship between
gender and sexuality is dynamic, fluid, and unstable, although
certainly patterned as well. She characterizes the relationship
between the two as ‘‘patterned fluidity.’’ And she introduces a
new metaphor to describe the intersection between gender and
sexuality: the shoreline, in which she proposes that the ‘‘land =
gender’’ because of its greater fixity, and the ‘‘sea = sexuality’’
because of its greater fluidity. I am sympathetic towards this
metaphor. When encountering shorelines in all their variety and
difference, one can well relate to the idea of gender and sexuality
related as those boundaries in eternal motion, in some places
Arch Sex Behav (2009) 38:883–898
more defined, or ‘‘thickly coded,’’ than in others, always af-
fected by local conditions, capable of rapid or major transfor-
mation (think of tsunamis or earthquakes), but always subtly
changing with the tides or through construction or erosion. And
one can see how various levels of influence are at work, bio-
logical in the physical conditions of sea and land, institutional in
the form of laws and regulations, and ideological in the form of
discourses of tourism, farming, and coastal management. How-
ever, I don’t succeed adequately symbolizing the individual as
an active agent in this metaphor, interacting with other indi-
viduals and with his or her social surroundings, doing gender
and doing sexuality on a day-to-day basis. Considering the point
I am about to make in this essay, I feel this detracts from the
adequacy of the metaphor. In symbolizing the ever-changing
interconnectedness between gender and sexuality, however, it is
fully satisfactory.
Preoccupation with Difference
A third difficulty is a persistent, even renewed and sometimes
polarizing preoccupation with gender/sex differences in sex
research, despite repeated calls to ‘‘move beyond the question
of difference’’ (Tolman, Striepe, & Harmon, 2003, p. 5). The
persistent use of gender (and sexual orientation) as dichotomous
and the consequent creation of the category of ‘‘other’’ has also
been criticized in the clinical sphere (e.g., Knudson-Martin &
Laughlin, 2007) and a nuanced approach to gender differences
in sex therapy has been called for (e.g., McCarthy & Bodhar,
2005). It seems that it has been persistent through history that
‘‘the pull of categorical thinking has been very strong’’ (Connell,
1985, p. 265). Recently, however, dichotomous, binary thinking
has intensified and renewed with the popularity of sociobiology
(e.g., in evolutionary psychology), in which it is claimed that sex
differences are hard-wired. Not in the least within this disci-
pline, it is that a related and crucial fourth difficulty shows:
Gender/sex differences are often exaggerated, even if evidence
shows that they are small. And in discussing these difficulties
below, I will relate them to a fifth one: Certain aspects of sex
research methodology (sometimes inescapably) inflate sex dif-
ferences and reinforce the double standard.
Clearly, there are many arguments in favor of ‘‘categoricali-
sation’’ (Connell, 1985). First and beyond discussion, there are
conceptual reasons for thinking difference in sexology, first and
foremost between women and men. In addition, there is a prin-
cipal necessity that we categorize, make distinctions. There may
also be research-technical reasons for a blow-up of differences.
In animal research, for instance, it is common practice to ‘‘opti-
mize conditions to maximize sex differences’’ (cf. McCarthy,
2007). Whether we like it or not, it may be necessary, to a certain
extent, to go over sex differences with a fine-tooth comb. We
must realize, however, that this may result in a blow-up of real
differences in much the same way as any conscious selection of
885
subjects may be characterized as Tiefer (1995) did for Masters
and Johnson’s weeding out of subjects who were ‘‘unable to
respond sexually,’’ i.e., as research on human singing behavior
by using the Metropolitan Opera Singers as a sample.
Next, and not in the least, of course, there are political reasons
to be utterly sensitive to sex differences. Gender sensitivity is
prerequisite in gender emancipatory processes, the emancipation
of women to begin with. Historically speaking, the acknowl-
edgement of, sensitivity for, and the very study of sex/gender
differences cannot be seen other than as a huge scientific (and
societal) benefit and advance after decennia of male-dominated
and male-centered research. This is also why calls to ‘‘go beyond
difference’’ have also met with criticism from feminist scholars.
Some have stated that it is (and these are the words of Bordo,
cited in McPhail, 2004, p. 14) ‘‘too early to leave patriarchy off
the hook via postmodern heterogeneity.’’ Others have argued
that ‘‘although gender may be a social construct, sexism is real’’
(McPhail, 2004, p. 15) or ‘‘the postmodern approach is theoret-
ically strong but politically weak.’’ Moreover, and obviously, the
scientific evidence is one more good reason to address gender
differences and this essay cannot do without a quick review of it.
The Evidence for Difference
In addressing the evidence for difference, I will limit myself to a
short characterization of the most often discussed sex differ-
ences (leaving biological differences aside for reasons of social
scientific focus and space) and say something roughly about the
strength or size of these differences.
Gender Differences in the Cognitive Realm
There is consistent evidence for sex differences on a number of
sex related attitudes, among which the notably large effects
(d [ .65) are found on attitudes towards casual sex (Oliver &
Hyde, 1993). In addition, women are quite consistently found to
be more relation oriented and partner-focused, men more ori-
ented towards self-, body-, or recreation (e.g., Impett & Peplau,
2003; Patrick, Maggs, & Abar, 2007). In their recent YSEX
study, Meston and Buss (2007) found that men endorsed all
reasons for sex more frequently than women did, except for
emotional reasons such as love and commitment. In terms of
sexual self-schemas, men tend to see themselves as slightly less
loving/warm and reserved/conservative (e.g., Hill, 2007), and as
more sexually responsive, experienced, and deviant than wo-
men, whereas women see themselves as more romantic and
sexually attractive compared to men (Garcia & Carrigan, 1998).
However, these sex differences in sexual motivations and self-
schemas, attitudes to casual sex excepted, are often notably
small (e.g., Hill, 2007).
123
886
Subsequently, there is increasing evidence for sex difference
in the cognitive processing of sexual information. The larger sex
differences appear to exist in the more or less deliberate mental
processes that translate automatic responses into actual urges
and arousal (Gillath, Mikulincer, Birnbaum, & Shaver, 2007;
Janssen, Everaerd, Spiering, & Janssen, 2000; Laan, van Ste-
geren, Scholte, & van Lunsen, 2007). There is evidence for
conscious, controlled self-regulation in particular by women,
a systematic inhibition or ‘‘downsizing’’ of uncontrolled res-
ponses. A different research tradition shows that, among men,
on the other hand, a failing inhibition may be an important
factor in sexual aggression by (adolescent) perpetrators (e.g.,
van Outsem, 2007). In line with this, women scored significantly
lower on sexual excitation and higher on sexual inhibition (Car-
penter, Janssen, Graham, Vorst, & Wicherts, 2008). Related is
the still growing body of evidence on sex differences in memory
for sexually relevant information (Geer & Manguno, 1997;
McCall, Rellini, Seal, & Meston, 2007). Men are more likely to
remember erotic or explicit information whereas women are
more likely to recall romantic details. Here as well, gender dif-
ferences appear to emerge particularly when explicit or con-
scious memory is involved. However, the within-gender var-
iability on measures such as all three excitation/inhibition
scales as developed by the Kinsey researchers, is much great-
er than the average difference between women and men (Car-
penter et al., 2008).
Gender Differences in the Behavioral Realm
When asked about frequencies of sexual thoughts or acts, or
numbers of partners, men consistently report higher numbers
(e.g., Baumeister, Catanese, & Vohs, 2001; Peplau, 2003). Men
show relatively strong sociosexual behavior, but effects are
particularly large (d [ .65) when solo acts, such as masturba-
tion (Hyde, 2005; Oliver & Hyde, 1993) or the use of porn and
other forms of seeking sexual stimuli are concerned. In the
Netherlands, twice as many men (81%) as women (40%) re-
ported some form of porn use in the past six months (Bakker &
Vanwesenbeeck, 2006). Some, for instance Baumeister et al.
(2001), conclude that men’s intrinsic sexual motivation is
stronger than that of women. Others question the factual basis of
the stereotype, bring forward that the evidence is mixed or that
operationalizations are biased towards frequency instead of
intensity (see Impett & Peplau, 2003). Yet others (also) stress
that, in intimate relationships, women and men are more alike
than they are different in terms of sexual attitudes and behavior
(e.g., Tiegs, Perrin, Kaly, & Heesacker, 2007).
Next, there is a variety of research showing more sexual
assertiveness and autonomy in men and more compliance and
inauthenticity in relationships in women (Impett, Schooler, &
Tolman, 2006). Related concepts on which men often score
relatively high are sexual self-efficacy (the conviction that one
can communicate and act upon one’s own sexual needs) or
123
Arch Sex Behav (2009) 38:883–898
‘‘initiation assertiveness’’ (for an overview, see Impett & Pe-
plau, 2003). On the other hand, sex differences in sexual auton-
omy (the feeling that one’s sexual behavior is self-determined)
are no more than a statistical trend in some studies (e.g., San-
chez, Crocker, & Boike, 2005). Nevertheless, connected to the
previous, large differences are found in sexual aggression,
coercion, and harassment (e.g., Peplau, 2003; Vanwesenbeeck,
2008). This is possibly the most robust sex difference in the area
of sexuality and, by contrast, remarkably absent in much of the
overview literature on sex differences in sexuality.
Gender Differences in Sexual Experience
Generally speaking, women report somewhat more sexual prob-
lems and dysfunctions than men do (e.g., Simons & Carey,
2001), although the differences are often not very large, de-
pending on what is measured. In the Netherlands, for in-
stance, 20% of women vs. 17% of men reported at least one
dysfunction in the past year (Bakker & Vanwesenbeeck,
2006). Meta-analyzing the evidence on self-reported sexual
arousal, Murnen and Stockton (1997) found only small to
moderate effects for gender difference, and they stressed the
large heterogeneity in research findings. It’s probably more in
the nature of sexual problems or dysfunctions that men and
women differ (see, for instance, Kashak & Tiefer, 2001) than
in their prevalence numbers. The sex differences in the area
of sexual victimization are very robust and very consistently
found, however. Women’s relative frequent experience there-
of is the flip coin of men’s relative prevalent sexual aggres-
sion. In addition, women harbor more negative feelings to-
ward sex than do men (Geer & Robertson, 2005). They con-
sistently score higher on sexual aversion, shame and guilt, and
overall score lower on sexual satisfaction, which appears to be
particularly true as women grow older (Carpenter et al., 2008).
Plasticity versus Rigidity
Finally, there is evidence for sex difference in sexual plasticity, a
concept introduced by Baumeister (2000), who reviewed evi-
dence that women show more within-person variance over time
on many sexual variables, show more response to various socio–
cultural variables, and show less attitude-behavior consistency.
Baumeister concluded that, in the area of sexuality, men are
more ‘‘natural’’ and women are more ‘‘cultural.’’ As a conse-
quence, the intra-group variability may be greater among wo-
men than among men, in particular when sex differences are
relatively strong. For instance, masturbation scores by women
show a normal distribution, while men show an ‘‘elevated flat.’’
Baumeister’s conclusions regarding women’s greater sexual
plasticity (or, as Hyde and Durik [2000] propose, men’s greater
sexual rigidity) have not met with much criticism, although
his genetically based explanations for the sex difference have
(e.g., Andersen, Cyranowski, & Aarestad, 2000; Hyde & Durik,
Arch Sex Behav (2009) 38:883–898
2000). Nevertheless, here as well, the question is how large these
sex differences really are.
Difference, What Difference?
Clearly, gender differences are there, and they’re sometimes
substantial. This is particularly true for sociosexuality and re-
lated attitudes, frequency of masturbation, seeking of sexual
stimuli, sexual aggression and victimization, and the nature of
sexual problems and dysfunctions. But it will also have to be
acknowledged that gender differences are often small, certainly
much smaller than popular opinion wills it. Even when statis-
tically significant, they may still be a matter of some percentage
points only. Hyde (2005) has shown that with a small effect size
of d = 0.2 (a correlation coefficient of .10), 85% of the area’s of
the distributions overlap between groups. Why should all the
attention go to the diverging 15% instead of to the within-group
differences in the remaining 85%?
Moreover, we have to acknowledge that differences found
must, in part, be attributed to methodological bias, one important
bias being that much research is being done among young, col-
lege student samples, among whom gender differences in the
area of sexuality have been shown to often be substantially larger
than among older or more heterogeneous samples. In addition,
sex differences in relation to sexuality are relatively easily attrib-
uted to genetic, biological processes, while this is, in fact, unfoun-
ded.
In criticism of the ‘‘overinflated claims’’ or inadequacy of
the notion of binary gender difference, authors have provided
alternative proposals. Fausto-Sterling (2000) has suggested we
have five genders, adding ‘‘herms’’ (‘‘true’’ hermaphrodites),
‘‘ferms’’ (female ‘‘pseudo-hermaphrodites’’), and ‘‘merms’’
(male ‘‘pseudo-hermaphrodites’’) to the usual two. Hyde (2005)
contends, on the basis of 46 meta-analyses, that males and fe-
males are more alike than different on most, though not all,
psychological and some sexual variables and argues for the
‘‘gender similarity hypothesis.’’ I tend to concur with Bancroft’s
(2003) account who (himself citing Frank Lillie) maintains that
‘‘there is a dimorphism which stares us in the face,’’ for the
deconstruction whereof Bancroft finds purpose or justification
for, because ‘‘it’s there, like the sun in the morning and the moon
at night’’ (p. 290).
Drawbacks of Thinking Difference
Differences, however, should not be exaggerated, for one be-
cause there are clear drawbacks to thinking difference. Many
have warned against the exaggeration of gender differences, in
sexuality as well as more generally, because of the risk of
polarization, stereotyping, and stigmatizing. The boundary be-
tween typing and stereotyping or between stereotyping and
887
stigmatizing is crossed sooner when differences are genetically
explained, and sex differences in sexuality are, more so than
other sex differences, susceptible for genetic explanations (cf.
Cole, Epstein Jayaratne, Cecchi, Feldbaum, & Petty, 2007).
Genetic explanations result in increased efforts to uncover
similarities among group members and hence increase stereo-
typing. This is exactly what is happening now within evolu-
tionary psychology: there is an endless search for within-group
similarities and between group differences, all with the purpose
of theory confirmation. Without doubt, the popularity of socio-
biological perspectives has strongly contributed to the polari-
zation of male/female sexuality and psychology. However, it is
evolutionary psychology in particular that does so whereas
evolutionary biology is much more tuned to diversity as an
essential precondition for sexual selection (cf. Bussey & Ban-
dura, 1999). Nevertheless, evolutionary perspectives largely re-
inforce the status quo of asymmetrical gender relations and are
subject to many a feminist’ critique. Or, as Tolman et al. (2003)
stated it: ‘‘the meanings and realities associated with male and
female sexuality are socially constructed to serve political sys-
tems that generate and sustain white, heterosexual, middle- and
upper class male privilege’’ (p. 5). The idea is that ‘‘the very fact
of continuing to label qualities and behaviors as masculine or
feminine will foster sex-based stereotypes’’ (Moi, 2005, p. 107).
Specifically, it has been argued that the construction of gender
difference is bound up with the assumption of gender comple-
mentarity: the idea that men and women ‘‘are made for each
other’’ (Jackson, 2006), thus fostering heteronormativity. More-
over, the continuous creation of sex/gender difference does not
only potentially support a stigma on women, but also supports
discomfort with intersex and transsex phenomena and thus the
stigmatization of people associated with them.
In addition, stereotyping can have expectancy confirmatory
effects. Barnett and Rivers (2004), for instance, have argued that
when men and women in couples strongly believe what they are
remonstrated with, i.e., that the differences between them are
enormous, they may give up on all attempts to solve their dif-
ferences or to deviate from scripted paths. Inflated claims of
sexual dysfunction in women may make women feel that they
are to blame for sexual problems with their partners, while alter-
native factors may be their partners’ inadequate behavior, bad
communication, or the inadequacy of sexual stimuli. Chances to
solve problems may be missed that way. One aspect of the costs
of stereotyping is that the non-conforming behavior gets all the
more considered deviant and thus negatively evaluated. This
may also work in the relationship between parents and children.
There is sufficient evidence that there are expectancy confir-
matory processes going on when parents expect their children to
behave according to stereotypes. There is a world of theory
informing us on these processes of expectancy conformation.
Stereotypes have a general tendency to confirm themselves,
because behavior that confirms expectations is selectively at-
tended to, is more easily stored in memory, is more cognitively
123
888
available for recall, and is seen as more relevant and informa-
tive, taken more seriously. Thus, stereotyping can be utterly
supportive of the status quo and forego social change. We have
to be careful what expectations to put out there. Besides, any-
body who is preoccupied with gender differences basically re-
duces women to their femininity and men to their masculinity
and this is as oppressive as ignoring difference. Generalizations
about gender may be as oppressive as generalizations about sex.
And last but not least, one of the most sorry drawbacks of the
preoccupation with sex differences is the fact that various forms
of diversity get obscured and alternative explanations are neg-
lected.
Confounding Factors
Clearly, and pointed out by many, the preoccupation with gen-
der/sex differences obscures the understanding of within-group
diversity and intra-individual variability (Difficulty 6) and the
persistent casualness in presenting sex as explanatory for vari-
ability in the sexual realm obscures the multidetermination of
gendered behavior and this casualness persists despite multiple
claims and evidence of the importance of many other generating
and mediating factors (Difficulty 7).
Societal Factors
Most notably, it is often maintained that the explaining factor in
differences between the sexes is not as much (biological) sex but
that various societal factors should be turned to as explanatory.
The double standard is first to come to mind in this context.
Presently, the double standard is both challenged and alive. There
is a growing body of literature showing local or subcultural
deviations from it (e.g., Dworkin & O’Sullivan, 2005; O’Sullivan
& Byers, 1993), but there is much evidence for its persistent
topicality as well. Jackson and Cram (2003), for instance, who
studied deviations from the norm in adolescent girls’ accounts
about heterosexuality, do find evidence for disruption but at the
same time declare that their findings also suggest that voices of
resistance to the sexual double standard may be muted and indi-
vidual rather than collective.
An important aspect in the double standard is that the norm
for women and girls is notably ambiguous. It says be sexy but
sexually modest, look sexy but say no, attract desire but mind
your own. An additional way in which the double standard is
utterly double for women is that it positions feminine sexuality
dichotomously as morally good or bad, which has come to be
known as the whore-madonna distinction. Men are more, as
Hyde and Durik (2000) formulated it ‘‘pulled in one pro-sex
direction.’’ The double standard urges men to be utterly sexual.
It presents men with a sexual mandate it seems. ‘‘Sexual com-
petence’’ is part—some would say the central part—of con-
temporary masculinity’’ (Frank, 2003, p. 72). Some have noted
123
Arch Sex Behav (2009) 38:883–898
that men are urged to find a balance just as women are, and that
the sexual message for men to initiate and direct but not to domi-
nate and coerce shows ambiguity as well (Kiefer & Sanchez,
2007b), an observation that may have become more applicable
through recent years. In addition, the warning for men to take
care to appropriately balance between mandated sexual preoc-
cupation on the one and sexual impulsivity/compulsivity on the
other hand may get out there in the nearby future as well.
These developments notwithstanding, I am convinced that
the ambiguity in the evaluation of women’s sexuality draws
heavily on the sexual experience of women and girls particu-
larly, and may, as a matter of fact, cause ambiguous, confused
sexual behavior and experience. Detrimental effects of the sex-
ual double standard for women’s as well as men’s sexual experi-
ence have been described and empirically confirmed by many.
A relatively recent review is by Crawford and Popp (2003),
illustrating, among others, that the double standard ‘‘may cause
women to develop a negative sexual identity,’’ that ‘‘the role of
gatekeeper can have many negative implications for women’s
sexuality,’’ that ‘‘it may lead women to sacrifice their sexual
autonomy in exchange for social desirability,’’ and that, most
importantly, ‘‘token resistance can cause women to become
disconnected from their own desires.’’ Generally speaking, the
costs of gender role adherence frequently outweigh the benefits.
Pressure to meet gender norms limits social possibilities and
produces negative emotional and behavioral outcomes. In par-
ticular, however, restrictive gender norms, which undermine
women’s power, competence, and agency, help account for
women’s higher rates of depression, poorer standardized scores
on a variety of psychological outcomes, and higher discontent
with sex (see also Sanchez et al., 2005). Moreover, the ambi-
guity of the sexual standards for women might also be an impor-
tant explaining factor in women’s so-called ‘‘plasticity.’’ One
conclusion stands out: to the extent that women’s sexual behav-
ior is more variable and ‘‘plastic’’ than men’s, it is in particular
detrimental to the understanding of the sexuality of women as a
group, when preoccupation with sex differences obscures the
understanding of within-group diversity.
Clearly, there is more to societal factors than the double
standard. From a social structuralist perspective, and I quote
Eagly and Wood (1999) here, ‘‘a society’s division of labor
between the sexes is the engine of sex-differentiated behavior
because it summarizes the social constraints under which men
and women carry out their lives’’ (p. 409). Sex differences, or
gender roles, are viewed as accommodations to the differing
restrictions and opportunities that a society maintains for its men
and women. From this perspective, there is a wealth of gender
division, institutionalized or not, linked to women’s and men’s
biological potential. However, it’s not the biological potential,
or sex, per se that causes gender (role) differences to emerge,
but the way society differentially treats these potentials. It does
so with the support of many different political and economi-
cal structures and processes, informing and exploiting human
Arch Sex Behav (2009) 38:883–898
intimate relations. There is no room to expand on these here.
Rather, I’ll move on to the evidence for the relevance of per-
sonality factors in the enactment of gender.
Personality Factors
Within a diversity framework (cf. Cameron, 2005), the ques-
tion how are women different from men will immediately be
met with the question: Which women and which men do you
mean? There are, to begin with, at least three demographic
aspects for which substantial confounding has been shown in
the literature: educational level, religious affiliation or com-
mitment, and, in particular, age. Hyde and Durik (2000), for
instance, illustrated how a number of gender differences in
sexuality almost disappeared when controlling for educatio-
nal level. A study by Cubbins and Tanfer (2000) provides an
example of how gender differences in high risk sexual behav-
iors could, in part, be explained by religiosity as measured by
the frequency of church visits. The crucial role of age, finally,
has been shown in many studies, among which some important
meta-analyses by Hyde (2005) for a number of sexual variables
and by Murnen and Stockton (1997) for sexual arousal, but also
for sex differences in sexual compliance by Impett and Peplau
(2003) and for sexual excitation versus inhibition by Carpenter
et al. (2008). A qualitative study by Johnston and Morrison
(2007) also provides a nice example in showing how Irish male
subjects’ need to adhere to gender stereotypes lessened as they
matured out of adolescence and how their goals changed from
‘‘being masculine enough’’ to ‘‘being your own man.’’ Basi-
cally, we cannot say anything about sex differences without
asking which age category we’re talking about. On the other
hand, however, Fischtein, Herold, and Desmarais (2007) ana-
lyzed Canadian data and found that demographic predictor
variables did significantly improve the explanatory power of
multivariate models, but that the significance of sex (called
gender by them as well) as predictor of sexual attitudes and
behaviors was hardly diminished with the addition of these
variables.
Some emerging evidence argues that it’s not as much about
differences between men and women but at least as much about
differences according to scores on masculinity or femininity
measures, i.e., one’s gender role orientation or gender identity.
This evidence introduces gender as confounding for sex, and
has, for instance, been shown for relational maintenance strat-
egies (Ayler & Dainton, 2004), sexual self-perceptions (Garcia
& Carrigan, 1998), and assertiveness, initiation, and satisfaction
(Greene & Faulkner, 2005).
Subsequently, sex related motives, attitudes, and beliefs have
been shown to be confounding for sex, for instance in relation to
sexual risk behavior. The risk behavior of women as well as men
is found to vary with their sexual motivations (e.g., Gebhardt,
Kuyper, & Dusseldorp, 2006). One study even found motives to
account for more than twice as much variance in risky practices
889
as did gender, race, age, and socioeconomic status combined
(Cooper, Shapiro, & Powers, 1998). However, this conclusion
applies more strongly to ‘‘risky’’ sexual behaviors, such as high
frequency of intercourse and high number of partners, than to
prevention behavior, such as birth control and condom use. In
this and related studies, it is often concluded that risk preventive
behavior needs to be considered from a dynamic, relational per-
spective. It takes two to tango, a conclusion that is grist to my
mill when arguing for an interactional perspective, as I will do
further on. Other authors have, in addition, stressed that HIV risk
is related to endorsement of traditional (and rape-supportive)
attitudes in (South African) men, but not in women, since wo-
men’s risks are the product of partner characteristics and male-
dominated sexual relations (Kalichman et al., 2005).
Further, some research relates to Big Five personality char-
acteristics and attachment styles as factors in sexual diversity,
although mostly in same-gender study populations. Anderson
and Cyranowski’s (1994, 1995) work on female sexual self-
schemas shows that extraversion is an important factor in the
likelihood of engaging in sex by young women, while among
older women, whose patterns of sexual behavior and responding
may be more established, the dimension of neuroticism appears
to be a more important personality variable. Attachment style
has been brought forward in the context of sexual aggression.
Mahalik, Aldarondo, Gilbert-Gokhale, and Shore (2005), for
instance, found anxious attachment (as well as gender-role
stress) to be related to controlling behaviors by men towards
women. However, we don’t know the extent to which these
personality factors confound with sex/gender.
Another relevant individual characteristic is cognitive pro-
cessing. As said, there are gender differences in cognitive pro-
cessing, but cognitive processing may be a factor in sexual
behavior independent of gender as well (as is true for several
attitudes). A recent study by McCall et al. (2007) investigated
recall of love/emotional bonding versus erotic/explicit stimuli
and found that levels of recall of love stimuli were negatively
associated with sexual desire and positively with sexual satis-
faction, independent of one’s sex. There is an increasing interest
in the role of cognitive processing, and this research shows that,
besides looking at sex differences in sexuality related cognitive
processing, the role of cognitive processing independent of
one’s sex needs further study as well. Finally, the mediating, or
even generating role, of earlier experiences in sex differences in
sexuality needs acknowledgement and attention. In this context,
the large differential in (childhood) victimizing experiences and
its relation to both sexual aggression (e.g., Malamuth, 2003) as
well as sexual victimization (e.g., Hines, 2007) and sexual sat-
isfaction in general is probably the most telling.
So what I’ve tried to do here is mention some factors that may
be as important for sex differences found in relation to sexuality
than ‘‘sheer’’ being male or female is, and may account for large
but often unattended within-gender differences. One might ask:
Where is the body in all of this?
123
890
Perspectives on the Body
There is a wealth of knowledge from various disciplines to be
presented about the body in relation to gender and sexuality.
I’ll modestly stick to highlighting a couple of perspectives.
Genes, Hormones, and the Brain
First, one obvious perspective is, of course, the biological one,
looking at physiological, hormonal, and brain characteristics
and processes. As a social scientist, I will not get into these, but,
even as a social scientist, it’s fit to say that, despite considerable
progress in this area, many uncertainties remain. There are con-
flicting results concerning the role of hormones and their actual
working in relation to the organization of the brain, or to sexual
behavior, is still much of a riddle. Likewise, a lot of questions
concerning the role of genes remain to be answered. There are a
number of studies on twins raised apart that show a relatively
small role for genes but a substantial contribution of non-shared
environmental influences (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). Never-
theless, it is beyond dispute that biology is an important com-
ponent in gendered sex, but it is also widely accepted now that
biology is not all determining. Moreover, the foundational status
of the body is now disputed, at least among some social scien-
tists. Fausto-Sterling (2000) has argued this, and it has also been
illustrated in the growing literature on neurobiological conse-
quences of trauma, not in the least child sexual abuse (e.g.,
Bremner, 1999; Noll, 2008). When personal experience as well
as culture may influence neuronal development and brain struc-
ture, experience and culture are ingrained into the body instead
of (or in addition to) the other way around. Obviously, we still
have a long way to go in understanding how culture is written
into the biological body.
Objectification Theory
Another perspective on the body is looking not as much at the
body as a biological entity, but more at the way the body is
treated in society. The cultural objectification of the female
body is the most important angle here. One landmark relatively
early work in this context is an essay by Young (1990), entitled
‘‘Throwing like a girl.’’ Heavily drawing on Simone de Beau-
voir, Young argued that the objectification of women’s bodies
make her experience her body as a thing that exists primarily as
looked at and acted upon. This has consequences for women’s
body comportment and conduct, which is often ambiguous, hes-
itant, and contradictory. Motion that is primarily experienced as
looked-at is felt to be not entirely under one’s control. Moreover,
‘‘bold outward-directedness’’ is at odds with traditional femi-
ninity. All this makes women take distance from their bodies,
doubt their bodies’ capacities, and results in a lack of experience
in using the body effectively. Young (1990) concludes: ‘‘Wo-
men in sexist society are physically handicapped’’ (p. 153).
123
Arch Sex Behav (2009) 38:883–898
Young chose her title right, because from the meta-meta-anal-
ysis by Hyde (2005) on gender differences it turned out that, by
far, the largest sex differences have been found with regard to
throwing velocity and speed. However, some sex differences in
the sexual realm were next in line in terms of effect sizes (be it at
a large distance), and this suggests that the handicaps women
experience because of their objectification may extent into
sexuality in a substantial way.
This has been a point indeed in ‘‘objectification theory,’’ first
formulated by Fredrickson and Roberts (1997). Objectification
theory posits that girls’ and women’s internalized observer’s per-
spective leads to self-objectification and habitual body monitor-
ing, which, in turn, can increase women’s opportunities for shame
and anxiety. And because women are vigilantly aware of their
outer body appearance, they may be left with fewer perceptual
resources available for attending to inner body experience. This is
the so-called ‘‘limited resources perspective’’: minding the outer
body distracts from awareness of the internal bodily states. This
phenomena was described as ‘‘spectatoring’’ by Masters and
Johnson as early as 1970 and they argued that this division of
attention greatly hinders women’s sexual satisfaction. The liter-
ature presenting evidence that indeed self-objectification and
sexual dysfunction are related (e.g., Steer & Tiggemann, 2008) is
now growing, as well as is the literature on the omnipresent media
as an important contributor to objectification and sexualization of
women and girls (see Ward & Harrison, 2005), and historical
shifts towards an increasing sexualization of the male body in
media and fashion has been noted as well (e.g., Rohlinger, 2002).
An American Psychological Association Task Force on the
Sexualization of Girls (2007) has recently reviewed the evidence
concerning the sexualization of women and girls and suggested
that, because of the limited resources perspective, women may
not only be hampered in their sexual lives by self-objectification
and hypervigilance of their bodies, but also in scholarly and sports
accomplishments as well as in professional ambitions.
Remarkably absent in this otherwise important and excel-
lent body of literature on the negative consequences of the
sexualization of women and girls are considerations on (the
conditions under which) sexualization may be capitalized
upon and have positive, empowering consequences (see also
Vanwesenbeeck, 2009). The discussion on female sexual
power limits itself mostly to assertions that women should not
only be looked at as victims of objectification, because they
also resist this oppression (Young has, for instance, criticized
her own work in this line), or that female sexual power is no
real power because it’s not under women’s control (just get old
and it’s gone), but I have not come across many lines of rea-
soning on if and when objectification might have other than
oppressive effects in the first place. As one consequence,
among others, of this omission, we still do not know to what
extent, when, or how the experience of objectification may
relate to arousal and lust in positive ways, as was also noted by
Segal (1994).
Arch Sex Behav (2009) 38:883–898
Poststructuralist Views
One final perspective on the body I will spend a couple of words
on is the poststructuralist perspective. It has been maintained by
Butler (1990, 1993) and others that the sexed body, just like
gender, is variable and historical, a cultural construct. From this
point of view, the body is constructed by gender, is the perfor-
mative effect of gender. One aspect here is that our knowledge
of ‘‘biological facts’’ is always filtered through ideas about gen-
der. Regardless of one’s appreciation of a perspective on the
body as a construct, it is undoubtedly important to acknowledge
that our ways of knowing, also of knowing the material body, are
heavily informed by cultural norms and visions. Surely, we have
still a long way to come to bridge the conceptual gap between the
biological and the cultural or symbolic, between the body in
terms of chromosomes and hormones, and gender in terms of the
social and the psychological. Clearly, the body and gender are in
many ways related, not least in the area of sexuality, but
the complexity of these relationships we are only beginning to
grasp.
So I would like to conclude these reflections with Difficulty
8: There are difficulties understanding the relationship between
gender and the body (or between biology and sexuality for that
matter). Although one conclusion may be rightly drawn: when it
comes to sex differences in sexuality, it may not as much be
about sex in terms of the male or female body, but about the way
female and male bodies are treated and looked upon, and in the
rebound, experienced by the subject, or in the words of Moi
(2005): ‘‘We are continuously making something of what the
world continuously makes of us, our existence is always a be-
coming’’ (p. 117). Which brings me to an interactional and
process-oriented perspective on gender and sexuality.
The Interactional, Process-Oriented Perspective
Through social scientific history, the interactional perspective
has been taken by many illustrious philosophers, such as Sartre
and de Beauvoir (stressing the generative nature of practice as
foundational in human identity) and by Goffman (1967), for
instance, in Interaction Ritual. Moreover, it has culminated in
important bodies of theory such as social learning theory, social
role theory, and symbolic interactionism. More specifically in
the area of sexuality, Simon and Gagnon’s script theory and
Risman and Schwartz’ microstructural approach are of note.
More specifically in the area of gender, some additional ap-
proaches are noteworthy. First, the introduction of the axiom
‘‘doing gender’’ (West & Zimmerman, 1987) was groundbreak-
ing. West and Zimmerman innovatively proposed an under-
standing of gender as a routine, methodical, and recurring
accomplishment. ‘‘Doing gender’’ is an individual act, but it’s a
situated doing, carried out in the virtual or real presence of others
who are presumed to be oriented to its production’’ (West &
891
Zimmerman, 1987, p. 126). The phrase ‘‘doing gender’’ spoke to
the imagination of many and came to refer to the day-to-day
enactment of prescribed social roles and the double standard.
Recently, Jackson (2006) emphasized that ‘‘doing gender’’ re-
fers both to everyday interpretive interaction through which a
socially intelligible reality is produced, as well as actual prac-
tical activities—having sex, getting dressed for work, organiz-
ing a night out—constructing a gendered, (hetero)sexual perfor-
mance. In this vein, doing gender is both seeing and doing,
interpreting and acting, all in daily interaction with others within
a specific context.
In the same year as West and Zimmerman introduced ‘‘doing
gender,’’ Deaux and Major (1987) presented their landmark
Interactive model of gender-related behavior. They developed
the model as an answer to the evidence that gender typed behav-
ior (e.g., nurturance by women, or men dashing to the help of
women) was typically a ‘‘now you see it now you don’t’’ phe-
nomena. They made their model to capture both stability and
flexibility, to stress display (now often called enactment) rather
than acquisition of gendered behavior, and to build on proximal
rather than distal factors. According to the model, the display of
gender typed behavior depends on characteristics of the behav-
ior, the situation, the interacting partner, and the subject him/
herself, and on social processes, such as selective attention, inter-
pretation and recall, regulation and self-regulation, and expec-
tancy confirmation. And there is no going beyond mentioning
Butler (1993), working within a philosophical instead of social
psychological framework, who introduced the related concept of
‘‘performative gender’’ and argued that gender is not an identity,
but an activity that is performed, enacted, and reconstituted in
everyday life, based upon reactions and feedback from others.
Gender is a phenomenon brought into being when it’s performed,
an ongoing accomplishment produced by people’s repeated ac-
tions, not something that is acquired once and for all at an early
stage of life.
So there is plenty of interaction-oriented theory from various
disciplines, stressing that gender, and sexuality, are put into
effect in an ongoing day-to-day process of situated interactive
interpretation and performance. At the same time, there is only
a modest interaction-oriented sex research tradition on how
gender is ‘‘negotiated’’ or enacted in day-to-day (hetero)sex-
ual(ly tainted social) interaction. Thus, the following difficulties
are certainly applicable to sexology. Gender is mostly referred
to as (either a cultural or) an individual phenomena, despite a
many assertions of the relevance of the interpersonal, interac-
tional level (Difficulty 9). In addition, gender is often presented
as a static, coherent individual attribute, despite assertions that
gender should be looked at as a plural, fluid, and foremost sit-
uated process (Difficulty 10).
Nevertheless, some applicable evidence for an interactional,
process-oriented perspective on gendered sexuality is available.
In considering the format in which this evidence could best be
presented, taking the full benefit of available theoretical insight
123
892
at the same time, I decided to lean on Deaux and Major’s model.
Without pretending to reach the level of sophistication that char-
acterizes their work, I took the liberty to apply their model to the
applicable sexological evidence, an exercise that resulted in an
interactional, contextual perspective on gendered sexuality.
‘‘Doing Gendered Sexuality’’
Gender typed sexual behavior (for a characterization based on
what is previously presented in this essay, see Fig. 1) is seldom
enacted in its pure form, and sometimes strongly contradicted.
The question I will treat here is: what are the conditions that
make it relatively likely that sexuality is enacted in these ste-
reotypical gendered ways? Following Deaux and Major, the
enactment of stereotypical gendered sexual behavior is depen-
dent upon characteristics of the behavior, the context or situa-
tion, the interacting partner(s), and the subject or actor.
Behavior-Related Aspects
First, the enactment of gender typed behavior is more likely the
more the behavior is central to the standard heterosexual script.
For example, women’s sexual restraint is more socially scripted
than their dysfunction, and the first is much more prevalent than
the latter (although one might suggest that with the continuous
aggressive marketing of female sexual dysfunction, it may be-
come more and more scripted as we go along). Related to this,
the enactment of gendered sexual behavior is more likely the
more the behavior is positively evaluated, a notion put forward
in role congruity theory (Eagly & Diekman, 2005). Generally
speaking, behavior that meets social norms is more positively
evaluated. According to the double standard, sexual initiative,
arousal, and assertiveness, et cetera by women are more nega-
tively evaluated than among men and thus less likely. But this is
not always true to the same extent under all circumstances.
Certain behaviors fit certain roles and situations better than
others, and are more positively evaluated when they do (Diek-
man, 2007). Obviously, there are and have been important his-
torical gender shifts, and there is subcultural variability. Evi-
dence shows, just to mention the example that social class
matters, that the display of sexual prowess is more positively
FEMININE MASCULINE
partner/love-oriented recreation/body-oriented
reactive (gate-keeper)
y al
proactive (sexual mandate)
cognitive inhibition
x x u
failing inhibition, excitation
se
ambivalence, hesitance assertiveness, initiative
plasticity
outer-body spectatoring
victimisation
s e
rigidity
awareness inner bodily cues
aggression
aversion, shame, problems pre-occupation, performance
Fig. 1 Gendered sexuality
123
Arch Sex Behav (2009) 38:883–898
evaluated as a reputational attribute among low income Amer-
ican men than among high incomers (Aronson, Whitehead, &
Baber, 2003). Evidence for women, on the other hand, shows
that being ‘‘too obviously sexual’’ is evaluated more negatively
and provokes more public distaste when being seen in working-
class women as opposed to in ‘‘women with independent life-
styles’’ (Skeggs, 2004). Thus, evaluations vary with the wider
context, among others with the norms within specific social
groups. Typical gendered behavior is more likely to be positively
evaluated and thus to be enacted in lower-income, working-class
social strata (and this is most probably related to the larger gender
differences among the lower educational groups, as referred to
earlier).
Situation-Related Aspects
To a certain extent, people have some freedom to ‘‘choose’’ their
situations. The sexual arena is not the same ground for everyone
and this is partly due to active processes on the part of the sub-
ject. On the other hand, situations are differentially available or
accessible to people, not in the least people of different gender.
Risman and Schwartz (1989) called this ‘‘the social organization
of opportunity’’ in their microstructural approach. A telling ex-
ample is the extensive commercial sex circuit that is available
for both heterosexual and homosexual men but much less so for
women. Frank (2003) stresses that commercial sex provides a
context, an institution supportive of the articulation of norma-
tive gender typed masculinity (and sociosexuality) and that is
indeed the point here, although I (Vanwesenbeeck, 2005) and
others, remarkably enough also for the Netherlands (Aalbers,
2005) have argued that there is much variety, not in the least
much non-gender typed behavior going on in the commercial
circuit as well. This does not detract from the fact, there are
numerous diverging opportunities, pressures as well as temp-
tations for men and women to enter certain situations. The point
to be made here is, that situations with certain characteristics,
make the enactment of gendered sexuality relatively likely,
characteristics such as the following.
First, gender roles are not consistently or rigidly in force, they
are more so when gender is salient (cf. Diekman, 2007) and/or
when situations are highly structured and defined towards gen-
derstereotypic behavior. For one, sexual interaction in itself is
strongly sex-linked and ‘‘one of the most powerful domains in
which men and women feel pressure to enact gender roles’’
(Sanchez et al., 2005, p. 1456), is heterosexual interaction in
particular. Heterosexuality is the pre-eminent context for gen-
dered behavior. The homosexual context, by contrast, is much
less monolithically inviting of typical feminine or masculine
sexual behavior. Other situations where gender is notably salient
are, for instance: a commercial sex club, a sorority house, a
singles bar, gender typical work or sports, dance cultures, etc.
Dance cultures, such as Hip Hop, for instance, have been de-
scribed as an intrinsically gendered experience in which the
Arch Sex Behav (2009) 38:883–898
display of gendered sexual behavior is pre-eminently normative
(e.g., Muňoz-Laboy, Weinstein, & Parker, 2007). Same-sex
groups are often encouraging of gender typed behavior as well
(e.g., Athenstaedt, Haas, & Schwab, 2004), as has for instance
been noted for the display of sexual prowess, experience and
aggression (or at least the boosting about it) by men in same-sex
groups. Group pressure by peers is a noted factor in sexual
aggression by adolescent perpetrators (van Outsem, 2007).
In relation to this, Deaux and Major showed that gendered
behavior is more likely to be displayed when the situation is
public as opposed to private/anonymous. One observation in
this context related to sexuality is provided by sociological re-
search that has shown that it is in certain spaces—namely public,
mixed-gender, unstructured ones—that women’s bodies are
most stereotypically subject to evaluative commentary by oth-
ers (e.g., Gardner, 1980, cited in Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).
However, most evidence of the public/private distinction being
relevant for sexuality related behavior comes from research on
report bias in sexuality research. This research shows, that re-
search subjects are more likely to report in gender typical direc-
tions when research settings provide less anonymity. Report
bias is notably low and gender differences relatively small in
anonymous research settings, as is shown in many studies by
now for a variety of sexual variables (Alexander & Fisher, 2003;
Durant & Carey, 2000, 2002; Meston, Heiman, Trapnell, &
Paulhus, 1998; Weinhardt, Forsyth, Carey, Jaworski, & Durant,
1998).
Connected is the distinction between new versus familiar
situations. People behave more gender typical when among
strangers than when among friends. This is partly due to the fact
that new situations are relatively confusing of one’s inner states.
Scripted, traditional, gendered behavior may be something to
hang on to in such unsettling situations, providing a welcome
guideline for what to do when one doesn’t really know. This
may explain why gender differences are stronger among young-
er research samples, for whom sexuality is relatively new and
confusing. Several studies indicate that traditionally gendered
behavior is less likely in longer term relationships (e.g., Ka-
lichman et al., 2005), and that, for instance, gender differences in
sexual compliance decrease among couples that have been to-
gether for a longer time (Impett & Peplau, 2003). The standard
heterosexual script seems to be adhered to most rigidly by inex-
perienced, younger, adolescent newcomers in the sexual arena
and the same is true for first dates. On the other hand, cohort
effects and recent historical shifts may account for relatively
strong gender typed ingrained habits in the presently older gen-
erations, as is for instance noted for Germany by Matthiesen and
Hauch (2004).
Finally, specific situations may provide triggers that prime
stereotypical behavior, as has been demonstrated in several lab-
oratory studies that found gender differences to be enhanced
or diminished as a function of context effects, such as the struc-
ture of the testing situation or the wording of questions (for an
893
overview, see Hyde, 2005). For instance, in a recent study by
Fisher (2007), men exaggerated their sexual experience and re-
ported more sexual partners with female research assistants (but
not with male assistants), in particular when first threatened in
their masculine identity by having been told that women are
nowadays more sexually permissive than men. Other studies use
watching porn as a situational trigger. One such study shows that
male subjects, after having watched porn for 15 min, showed
more sexual interest in the female researcher, came to sit closer to
her, and could remember more physical characteristics of hers
afterwards (McKenzie-Mohr & Zanna, 1990). However, as sup-
ported by many other studies on the effects of watching porn:
these effects show only, or show stronger, among male subjects
that are strongly ‘‘gender typed’’ or that score high on measures
of hypermasculinity and ambivalent sexism in the first place.
Effects among non-gender-typed men may even show reverse
results.
Partner(s)-Related Aspects
Men’s greater interpersonal power in heterosexuality has been
argued by many. Hyde and Durik (2000), for instance, relate it to
men’s greater attitude-behavior consistency in matters of sex-
uality, since ‘‘men do what they want to do and what they believe
in, whereas women often do not precisely because of men’’s
influence on them’’ (p. 376). Clearly, interpersonal, relational
power and gender typed relational (in)dependency are in many
ways related to ideological, social and economical status and
resources, not to mention physical strength. Generally speaking,
the display of gender typed behavior is more likely when the
partner controls resources or rewards for the subject (Deaux &
Major, 1987). Subjects have more concern with self-presenta-
tion when they are dependent upon their interacting partners,
and are thus more likely to behave in accordance with social
norms. There is evidence for compliant behavior by women
who are more economically dependent upon their partners, even
in abusive relationships.
In addition, there are many more concealed and more uncon-
sciously exerted powers and influences by which a partner may
elicit or enforce subject’s gender typed behavior. Following the
interactive model of gender-related behavior, the display of
gender typed behavior is more likely when the interacting part-
ner is more strongly gender typed and finds adherence to gender
norms important. The more interacting partners do so, the more
will they be selectively attentive to, selectively interpretative of,
and strongly expectant of gender typical behavior on the part of
the subject. The same is true when the partners are actually more
conforming of gender norms, i.e., being more masculine or
feminine themselves. I am aware I am using the term gender
typed somewhat sloppily here by having it sometimes refer to
valuing gender norm adherence and at other times to con-
forming to gender norm (for which I apologize). Crucial is that,
123
894
in both cases, these partners are more likely of eliciting gender
typed behavior in the subject. This is what has been called
‘‘norm-sending’’ in social role theory, as one mechanism by
which normative beliefs about gender maintain sex differences
(e.g., Wood, Christensen, Hebl, & Rothgerber, 1997).
There is not much evidence collected in the area of sexuality
here yet. A somewhat relevant body of evidence in this context
may be the one related to the inferral of sexual interest. It has
been contended that men who have relatively salient sexual
schemas have those schemas readily accessible, are inclined to
‘‘oversexualize’’ and infer more sexual interest in their partners
than is actually felt by them (Abbey, Zawacki, & McAuslan,
2001). And several studies have indeed found perceived sexual
interest in a (potential) partner to be predicted (among others) by
hypermasculinity and traditional attitudes towards women in
men, and by hyperfemininity in women (e.g., Fisher & Walters,
2003), although there is some contradictory evidence as well
(e.g., Levesque, Nave, & Lowe, 2006). Generally speaking,
highly gender typed partners are likely to address the actor spe-
cifically as a man or a woman, thus, again selectively perceiving,
interpreting, expecting and thus eliciting gender typed behavior
on the part of the subject. This is more likely to happen when the
partner has less individuated information about the subject. This
is one reason why gender typical behavior is less likely when
people are familiar to each other. Perceived attractivity may
enhance gender typed expectations as well. Levesque et al.
(2006) found men to infer more sexual interest in a female
partner they find physically attractive, an observation that fits
Deaux and Major’s account of laboratory studies on helping
behavior that show that men behave more masculine with wo-
men they consider attractive and women more feminine with
men they find attractive.
Next, according to the interactive model of gendered behav-
ior, the interacting partner may trigger stereotypic behavior by
stereotypic self-presentation, in attire or behavior. Evidence
shows, for instance, that more help is offered to women in typi-
cal feminine attire, and women who are offered more help will in
turn act more helpless (see Deaux & Major, 1987). There is
relevant evidence related to gendered sexuality in this respect.
Several researchers have pointed out (for a discussion, see
Kiefer & Sanchez, 2007a), that regardless of one’s gender,
having a sexually assertive partner might lead to the adoption of
a recipient, passive sexual role. An unpublished study I con-
ducted with Roger Ingham and others illustrated this mecha-
nism for adolescent girls: When forced to respond to unremit-
ting, constant sexual initiative of boys, chances were that girls
would be totally preoccupied with whether or not they would
give in or comply, only dealing with the question ‘‘yes or no’’
and hardly at all with ‘‘what or how.’’ As a consequence, once it
was decided to indeed comply and have sex in such situations,
girls would often leave the whole subsequent orchestration to
the boy, taking the full-fletched feminine passive role. Thus,
girls’ gender typed passivity may be a reaction to the sexual
123
Arch Sex Behav (2009) 38:883–898
assertiveness of their male partners. Moreover, the submissive
sexual role may further enhance ‘‘typical’’ feminine sexual
problems, such as arousal difficulties (e.g., Sanchez, Kiefer, &
Ybarra, 2006), and thus help accomplish ‘‘typical,’’ hampered
sexual satisfaction in women.
Subject-Related Aspects
Finally, there are a number of subject related aspects postulated
in Deaux and Major’s interactive model of gendered behavior to
make the enactment of gender typed behavior more likely. For
one, typed behavior is more likely when the subject highly
values meeting gender norms. There is diversity among people
in this respect. Some believe it is important to be similar to tra-
ditional norms and avoid gender deviance, whereas others do
not share that belief (Wood et al., 1997). Sanchez et al. (2005)
have argued that valuing gender conformity in itself negatively
affects sexual pleasure for both men and women. This works
through increased contingency on others’ approval and re-
stricted sexual autonomy. Their model fits the data for both men
and women. They call it ‘‘being externally contingent.’’ Others
have studied it as approval motivation (e.g., McCormick, Bran-
nigan, & LaPlante, 1984) or social desirability (e.g., Meston
et al., 1998). The YSEX study by Meston and Buss (2007), for
instance, suggests that women report sexual motivation in a less
constraint (less gender typed) way when less concerned about
social dictates.
Connected but not the same is the notion that gender typed
behavior is more likely when the subject has a gender script high
in his or her belief system. There are a number of studies linking
belief in the double standard or their opposites to gender typical
behaviors or their opposites in both women and men, such as in
terms of assertive sexual talk, sex refusal, socio-sexual behav-
ior, et cetera (for an overview, see Sanchez et al., 2005). The
explaining mechanism is that people who see sex typed norms as
self-relevant standards, experience favorable self-evaluations
and feel good when they conform to these norms (Wood et al.,
1997). For instance, Tolman (1999) found that adolescent girls
with relatively strong conventional femininity ideologies are
more likely to, very ‘‘girly,’’ embrace romance conventions
that disable them in relationships. Kiefer and Sanchez (2007a)
showed that endorsement of traditional sexual roles enhances
women’s sexual passivity but reduces it in men. Kiefer and San-
chez (2007b) have also found evidence in a number of priming
studies that ‘‘men who do not invest in masculine gender ideals
are more likely to inhibit dominant thoughts following sex
primes’’ and sooner refrain from dominant sexual behavior.
Subsequently, and again connected, is evidence that gender
typed sexual behavior is also more likely to be displayed when it
is more consistent with and central to subject’s self-schema or
when the subject is highly gender typed him/herself. Clearly,
people vary to the extent femininity or masculinity and, in
addition, feminine or masculine sexuality, are central to their
Arch Sex Behav (2009) 38:883–898
self-concepts. Behavior that fits one’s self-image is more likely
to be displayed. The same is true when behavior is strongly
generalized or acquired. If a behavior has been strongly gen-
eralized in the subjects repertoire across situations and contexts,
and has become a firm part of one’s sexual self-image, it is more
likely to show. This refers to the confounding role of gender in
sex differences and related evidence has been touched upon
above. In addition, Garcia and Carrigan (1998) found sexual
self-perceptions to be more stereotypically gendered among
men who score higher on masculinity or women who score
higher on femininity. Ayler and Dainton (2004) found women
as well as men who score relatively high on femininity, to dis-
play more relation orientedness. And several studies have sug-
gested that, in general, adopting masculine traits encourages a
masculine pattern of sexual behavior for both men and women.
Hypermasculinity in men has been associated with gender-
based violence against women (e.g., Mahalik et al., 2005) as
well as with antigay anger and aggression (Parrott & Zeichner,
2008). Some research has focused on the relation between gen-
der identity and HIV risk/protective behavior and this rela-
tion turns out to be complex: masculinity may protect women
through the workings of higher self-efficacy but may on the
other hand cause more risk because of masculine behaviors such
as a higher number of partners and the use of drugs with sex
(Lucke, 1998).
Further, stereotypical self-presentation on the part of the sub-
ject (in attire or behavior) may elicit gender typical expectations
with the interacting partner, on the rebound making that behav-
ior more likely in the subject. An example given by Deaux and
Major is that more helplessness is expected and more help is
offered to women in typical feminine attire, who consequently
behave more helpless. These processes of expectancy confir-
mation as well as of reciprocity in sexual interaction, certainly
need to get further attention in sex research, as far as I can see
there is not much evidence available yet. It would, for instance,
be relevant to investigate to what extent adherence to the ambig-
uous messages in the standard heterosexual script, makes wo-
men and girls present themselves in ambiguous ways in sex-
ual interactions. This might cause misunderstandings and wrong
expectations among their male partners, which may in turn be
related to sexual violence. Besides, an ambiguous self-presenta-
tion may have detrimental effects on women’s sexual conduct
and experience, in much the same way as ‘‘throwing like a girl’’
hampers their throwing velocity and speed.
Generally speaking, behavior conforming of social norms is
more likely when subjects are more concerned with self-pre-
sentation as opposed to self-verification in the first place. Re-
lated concepts are being high on self-monitoring or high on
public (as opposed to a private) self-consciousness. This is re-
lated to importance being placed on meeting gender norms, but
there is more to it. Sanchez and Kiefer (2007) looked at appear-
ance concerns and found that, although women were signifi-
cantly more likely to report appearance concerns than men
895
across sexual and non-sexual contexts, appearance concerns
were positively related to both men and women’s sexual prob-
lems. The relationship between body shame and sexual pleasure
and problems was mediated by sexual self-consciousness dur-
ing physical intimacy. This evidence as well as evidence pre-
sented before in the context of objectification theory, illustrates
that concerns with self-presentation may interfere with aware-
ness of inner sexual states, sexual autonomy, and sexual satis-
faction. And the evidence shows that women are more likely to
do so than men are. Overall, I would say, conditions are still such
that women loose out more in sexuality than men do when they
conform to gender norms.
The point here, however, is that appearance and presentational
concerns make gender typical behavior more likely in men as
well as in women. So it seems that women are relatively likely to
have self-presentational concerns in sexuality, and when they do
to a relatively large extent, they are once more relatively likely to
behave typically feminine, thus in an ambiguous, passive and
constraint way, with possibly negative consequences for their
sexual satisfaction. Among men who are relatively strongly con-
cerned with self-presentation, the thereby encouraged typical
macho behavior may not as much hamper sexual agency or auto-
nomy, but may hamper sexual empathy and communication, and
thus sexual satisfaction, of themselves as well as their partners, in
different ways. These processes, among women as well as men,
certainly need much more study in the future.
Conclusion
From this review, it can be concluded that there is a growing
body of theory and evidence illustrating that there is much more
to gendered sexuality than sexual difference according to ‘‘sex
M/F’’ alone. Rather, it should be acknowledged that gendered
sexuality (broadly defined as all sexually tainted social inter-
action informed by gender norms) is a multifaceted, multide-
termined social process, strongly affected by societal and per-
sonality factors, showing huge within-sex diversity and intra-
individual variability, and, ultimately, put into effect on a day-
to-day basis in various sorts of human social relations and
spheres. Moreover, there is ample reason to suggest that gen-
dered sexuality is indeed a situated process, more likely to be
‘‘done’’ in certain contexts and situations. The valuation (and
thus likelihood) of gender conformative sexual behaviors is
historically and (sub)culturally variant to begin with. In addi-
tion, gender typed sexual behavior may be relatively likely to be
enacted in situations where, among others, gender is relatively
salient, or in situations that are public, unfamiliar or confusing,
or when less individuated information about subjects is avail-
able, such as flirting situations, first dates, and new sexual rela-
tions among newcomers in the sexual arena. Furthermore, there
is evidence that gendered sexuality is also more likely to be put
into effect when interacting partners positively value gender
123
896
norm conformity, are highly gender typed themselves, are
strongly expectant of matching gender typed behavior in their
partners, and/or trigger gender typed behavior with the other(s)
by gender typical self-presentation. Apart from obvious, con-
scious social pressures possibly exerted, there may be many
unconscious forms of social influence at play that are often
underestimated by those who put it forth (a typical Type II
error). However, through social mechanisms such as selective
expectation, attention, interpretation and recall, norm sending,
action–reaction, self-regulation, and expectancy confirmation,
gendered sexuality is a day-to-day interactional accomplish-
ment that is relatively likely to take place when conditions such
as mentioned here are met to a larger extent. Heterosexuality
may be particularly inviting of gendered behavior in the first
place, and thus be co-constitutive to gender in an important way.
It’s still a modest number of studies that explicitly take the
interactional, process-oriented perspective. The preoccupation
with sex differences in sexology obscures both diversity and
confounding factors as well as these processes, conditions, and
triggers that are relevant in putting gendered sexuality into effect.
Surely, they deserve much more attention than they have re-
ceived so far. Clearly, in studying sexuality, we are obliged to be
utterly sensitive to sex differences and we need to analyze them
on the level of the individual, both body and mind. However, we
also should avoid overinflating difference and be attentive to
within-sex diversity, among others according to personality as-
pects (of which personal gender identity is one). But let’s cer-
tainly not limit ourselves to the individual. Let at least some of us
focus on diversity in sexuality as well as gender in relation to the
(changing) wider social context (norms, institutions, econom-
ics), proximal situational triggers, group social mechanisms, and
couple interactional processes. Obviously, this plea is not a new
one, but apparently it needs to be made from time to time.
References
Aalbers, M. B. (2005). Big Sister is watching you!: Gender interaction
and the unwritten rules of the Amsterdam red-light district. Journal
of Sex Research, 42, 54–62.
Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., & McAuslan, P. (2001). Alcohol’s effects on
sexual perception. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61, 688–697.
Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using
the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexu-
ality. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 27–35.
American Psychological Association Task Force on the Sexualization of
Girls. (2007). Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of
Girls. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Retrieved February 22, 2007 from http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/
sexualization.html
Andersen, B. L., & Cyranowski, J. M. (1994). Women’s sexual self-
schema. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1079–
1100.
Andersen, B. L., & Cyranowski, J. M. (1995). Women’s sexuality:
Behavior, responses, and individual differences. Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology, 63, 891–906.
123
Arch Sex Behav (2009) 38:883–898
Andersen, B. L., Cyranowski, J. M., & Aarestad, S. (2000). Beyond arti-
ficial, sex-linked distinctions to characterize female sexuality: Com-
ment on Baumeister (2000). Psychological Bulletin, 126, 380–384.
Aronson, R., Whitehead, T., & Baber, W. (2003). Challenges to masculine
transformation among urban, low-income, African-American males.
American Journal of Public Health, 93, 732–741.
Athenstaedt, U., Haas, E., & Schwab, S. (2004). Gender role self-
concept and gender-typed communication behavior in mixed-sex
and same-sex dyads. Sex Roles, 50, 37–52.
Ayler, B., & Dainton, M. (2004). Biological sex and psychological
gender as predictors of routine and strategic relational mainte-
nance. Sex Roles, 50, 689–697.
Bakker, F., & Vanwesenbeeck, I. (Eds.). (2006). Seksuele gezondheid in
Nederland 2006 [Sexual health in the Netherlands 2006]. RNG-
studies 9. Delft: Eburon.
Bancroft, J. (2003). [Review of Sexing the body: Gender politics and the
construction of sexuality]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 289–291.
Barnett, R., & Rivers, C. (2004). Same difference: How gender myths are
hurting our relationships, our children, and our jobs. New York:
Basic Books.
Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity.
Psychological Bulletin, 126, 347–374.
Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a
gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views,
conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242–273.
Bremner, J. D. (1999). Does stress damage the brain? Biological Psychi-
atry, 45, 795–805.
Burman, E. (2005). Contemporary feminist contributions to debates
around gender and sexuality: From identity to performance. Group
Analysis, 38, 17–30.
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender
development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676–
713.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity.
New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limitations of ‘‘sex’’.
New York: Routledge.
Cameron, D. (2005). Language, gender, and sexuality: Current issues
and new directions. Applied Linguistics, 26, 482–502.
Carpenter, D., Janssen, E., Graham, C., Vorst, H., & Wicherts, J. (2008).
Women’s scores on the Sexual Inhibition/Sexual Excitation Scales
(SIS/SES): Gender similarities and differences. Journal of Sex Res-
earch, 45, 36–48.
Cole, E. R., Epstein Jayaratne, T., Cecchi, L. A., Feldbaum, M., & Petty, E.
M. (2007). Vive la difference? Genetic explanations for perceived
gender differences in nurturance. Sex Roles, 57, 211–222.
Connell, R. W. (1985). Theorising gender. Sociology, 19, 260–272.
Cooper, M. L., Shapiro, C. M., & Powers, A. M. (1998). Motivations for sex
and risky sexual behavior among adolescents and young adults: A
functional perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75, 1528–1558.
Crawford, M., & Fox, A. (2007). From sex to gender and back again:
Co-optation of a feminist language reform. Feminism & Psychol-
ogy, 17, 481–486.
Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review
and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of
Sex Research, 40, 13–26.
Cubbins, L. A., & Tanfer, K. (2000). The influence of gender on sex: A
study of men’s and women’s self-reported high-risk sex behavior.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 229–257.
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interac-
tive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–
389.
Diekman, A. B. (2007). Negotiating the double bind: Interpersonal and
instrumental evaluations of dominance. Sex Roles, 22, 551–561.
Arch Sex Behav (2009) 38:883–898
Durant, L. E., & Carey, M. P. (2000). Self-administered questionnaires
versus face-to-face interviews in assessing sexual behavior in
young women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 309–322.
Durant, L. E., & Carey, M. P. (2002). Reliability of retrospective self-
reports of sexual and nonsexual health behaviors among women.
Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 28, 331–338.
Dworkin, S. L., & O’Sullivan, L. (2005). Actual versus desired initiation
patterns among a sample of college men: Tapping disjunctures
within traditional male sexual scripts. Journal of Sex Research, 42,
150–158.
Eagly, A. H., & Diekman, A. B. (2005). What is the problem? Prejudice as
an attitude-in- context. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman
(Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 19–
35). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in
human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 54, 408–423.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the
construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.
Fischtein, D. S., Herold, E. S., & Desmarais, S. (2007). How much does
gender explain in sexual attitudes and behaviors? A survey of Can-
adian adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 451–461.
Fisher, T. D. (2007). Sex of experimenter and social norm effects on
reports of sexual behavior in young men and women. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 36, 89–100.
Fisher, T. D., & Walters, A. S. (2003). Variables in addition to gender
that help to explain differences in perceived sexual interest. Psy-
chology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 154–162.
Frank, K. (2003). ‘‘Just trying to relax’’: Masculinity, masculinizing prac-
tices, and strip club regulars. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 61–76.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory:
Towards understanding women’s lived experiences and mental
health. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.
Garcia, L. T., & Carrigan, D. (1998). Individual and gender differences in
sexual self-perceptions. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality,
10, 59–70.
Gardner, C. B. (1980). Passing by: Street remarks, address rights, and the
urban female. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 328–356.
Gebhardt, W. A., Kuyper, L., & Dusseldorp, E. (2006). Condom use at first
intercourse with a new partner in female adolescents and young adults:
The role of cognitive planning and motives for having sex. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 35, 217–225.
Geer, J. H., & Manguno, G. M. (1997). Gender differences in cog-
nitive processes in sexuality. Annual Review of Sex Research, 9,
90–124.
Geer, J. H., & Robertson, G. G. (2005). Implicit attitudes in sexuality:
Gender differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 671–677.
Gillath, O., Mikulincer, M., Birnbaum, G. E., & Shaver, P. R. (2007).
Does subliminal exposure to sexual stimuli have the same effect for
men and women? Journal of Sex Research, 44, 111–121.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior.
New York: Pantheon Books.
Greene, K., & Faulkner, S. L. (2005). Gender, belief in the sexual double
standard, and sexual talk in heterosexual dating relationships. Sex
Roles, 53, 239–251.
Hill, D. R. (2007). Differences and similarities in men’s and women’s
sexual self-schemas. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 135–144.
Hines, D. A. (2007). Predictors of sexual coercion against women and men:
A multilevel, multinational study of university students. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 36, 403–422.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychol-
ogist, 60, 581–592.
Hyde, J. S., & Durik, A. M. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plastic-
ity-evolutionary or sociocultural forces? Comment on Baumeister
(2000). Psychological Bulletin, 126, 375–379.
897
Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2003). Sexual compliance: Gender, moti-
vational, and relationship perspectives. Journal of Sex Research, 40,
87–100.
Impett, E. A., Schooler, D., & Tolman, D. L. (2006). To be seen and not
heard: Femininity ideology and adolescent girls’ sexual health.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 131–144.
Ingraham, C. (1996). The heterosexual imaginary. In S. Seidman (Ed.),
Queer theory/sociology (pp. 168–193). Oxford: Blackwell.
Jackson, S. (2006). Gender, sexuality and heterosexuality: The complexity
(and limits) of heteronormativity. Feminist Theory, 7, 105–121.
Jackson, S. M., & Cram, F. (2003). Disrupting the sexual double standard:
Young women’s talk about heterosexuality. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 42, 113–127.
Janssen, E., Everaerd, W., Spiering, M., & Janssen, J. (2000). Automatic
processes and the appraisal of sexual stimuli: Towards an information
processing model of sexual arousal. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 8–
23.
Johnston, C. A. B., & Morrison, T. G. (2007). The presentation of
masculinity in everyday life: Contextual variations in the Mascu-
line behavior of young Irish men. Sex Roles, 57, 661–674.
Kalichman, S., Simbayi, L. C., Kaufman, M., Cain, D., Cherry, C.,
Jooste, S., et al. (2005). Gender attitudes, sexual violence, and HIV/
AIDS risk among men and women in Cape Town, South Africa.
Journal of Sex Research, 42, 299–306.
Kashak, E., & Tiefer, L. (Eds.). (2001). A new view of women’s sexual
problems. New York: The Haworth Press.
Kiefer, A. K., & Sanchez, D. T. (2007a). Scripting sexual passivity: A
gender role perspective. Personal Relationships, 14, 269–290.
Kiefer, A. K., & Sanchez, D. T. (2007b). Men’s sex-dominance inhibi-
tion: Do men automatically refrain from sexually dominant behav-
ior? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1617–1631.
Knudson-Martin, C., & Laughlin, M. J. (2007). Gender and sexual
orientation in family therapy: Toward a postgender approach.
Family Relations, 54, 101–115.
Laan, E., van Stegeren, A., Scholte, S., & van Lunsen, R. (2007).
Genderverschillen en- overeenkomsten in de seksuele respons [Gender
differences and similarities in sexual response]. Tijdschrift voor Se-
ksuologie, 31, 113–118.
Levesque, M. J., Nave, C. S., & Lowe, C. A. (2006). Toward an
understanding of gender differences in inferring sexual interest.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 150–158.
Lucke, J. (1998). Gender roles and sexual behavior among young
women. Sex Roles, 39, 273–297.
Mahalik, J. R., Aldarondo, E., Gilbert-Gokhale, S., & Shore, E. (2005).
The role of insecure attachment and gender role stress in predicting
controlling behaviors in men who batter. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 20, 617–631.
Malamuth, N. M. (2003). Criminal and non-criminal sexual aggressors.
Integrating psychopathy in a hierarchical mediational confluence
model. In R. A. Prentky, E. S. Janus, & M. C. Seto (Eds.), Sexually
coercive behavior understanding and management (pp. 33–58).
New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
Matthiesen, S., & Hauch, M. (2004). Verschwinden die Geschlechtsunter-
schiede? Auflösung, Umkehr oder Kontinuität traditioneller Gesch-
lechtsunterschiede im sexuellen Verhalten [Will gender differences
disappear? Dissolution, reversal, or continuity of traditional gender
differences in sexual behaviour]. Verhaltenstherapie & Psychosoziale
Praxis, 36, 491–508.
McCall, K. M., Rellini, A. H., Seal, B. N., & Meston, C. M. (2007). Sex
differences in memory for sexually-relevant information. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 36, 508–517.
McCarthy, B. W., & Bodhar, L. E. (2005). The equity model of sexuality:
Navigating and negotiating the similarities and differences between
men and women in sexual behavior, roles and values. Sexual and
Relationship Therapy, 20, 225–235.
123
898
McCarthy, E. (2007, August). Cellular events during development that
determine adult sexual behavior in a rodent animal model. Paper
presented at the meeting of the International Academy of Sex Res-
earch, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
McCormick, N. B., Brannigan, G. G., & LaPlante, M. N. (1984). Social
desirability in the bedroom: Role of approval motivation in sexual
relationships. Sex Roles, 11, 303–314.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Zanna, M. P. (1990). Treating women as sexual
objects: Look to the (gender schematic) male who has viewed pornog-
raphy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 296–308.
McPhail, B. A. (2004). Questioning gender and sexuality binaries: What
queer theorists, transgendered individuals, and sex researchers can
teach social work. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 17, 3–21.
Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 36, 477–507.
Meston, C. M., Heiman, J. R., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998).
Socially desirable responding and sexuality self-reports. Journal of
Sex Research, 35, 148–157.
Moi, T. (2005). Sex, gender and the body. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Muňoz-Laboy, M., Weinstein, H., & Parker, R. (2007). The Hip-Hop
club scene: Gender, grinding and sex. Culture, Health & Sexuality,
9, 615–628.
Murnen, S. K., & Stockton, M. (1997). Gender and self-reported sexual
arousal in response to sexual stimuli: A meta-analytic review. Sex
Roles, 37, 135–153.
Noll, J. G. (2008). Sexual abuse of children: Unique in its effects on
development? Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 603–605.
O’Sullivan, L. F., & Byers, E. S. (1993). Eroding stereotypes: College
women’s attempts to influence reluctant male sexual partners. Journal
of Sex Research, 30, 270–282.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51.
Parrott, D. J., & Zeichner, A. (2008). Determinants of anger and physical
aggression based on sexual orientation: An experimental examination
of hypermasculinity and exposure to male gender role violations.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 891–901.
Patrick, M. E., Maggs, J. L., & Abar, C. C. (2007). Reasons to have sex,
personal goals, and sexual behavior during the transition to college.
Journal of Sex Research, 44, 240–249.
Peplau, L. A. (2003). Human sexuality: How do men and women differ?
Psychological Science, 12, 37–40.
Peplau, L. A., & Garnets, L. D. (2000). A new paradigm for under-
standing women’s sexuality and sexual orientation. Journal of
Social Issues, 56, 329–350.
Richardson, D. (2007). Patterned fluidities: (Re)Imagining the relation-
ship between gender and sexuality. Sociology, 41, 457–474.
Risman, B. J., & Schwartz, P. (Eds.). (1989). Gender in intimate rela-
tionships: A microstructural approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
Rohlinger, D. A. (2002). Eroticizing men: Cultural influences on
advertising and male objectification. Sex Roles, 46, 61–74.
Sanchez, D. T., Crocker, J., & Boike, K. R. (2005). Doing gender in the
bedroom: Investing in gender norms and the sexual experience.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1445–1455.
Sanchez, D. T., & Kiefer, A. K. (2007). Body concerns in and out of the
bedroom: Implications for sexual pleasure and problems. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 36, 808–820.
123
View publication stats
Arch Sex Behav (2009) 38:883–898
Sanchez, D. T., Kiefer, A. K., & Ybarra, O. (2006). Sexual submissive-
ness in women: Costs for sexual autonomy and arousal. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 512–524.
Sandfort, T. G. M. (2005). Sexual orientation and gender: Stereotypes
and beyond. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 595–611.
Segal, L. (1994). Straight sex: The politics of pleasure. London: Virago
Press.
Simons, J. S., & Carey, M. P. (2001). Prevalence of sexual dysfunction:
Results from a decade of research. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30,
177–219.
Skeggs, B. (2004). Class, self, culture. London: Routledge.
Steer, A., & Tiggemann, M. (2008). The role of self-objectification in
women’s sexual functioning. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 27, 205–225.
Tiefer, L. (1995). Sex is not a natural act, and other essays. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Tiefer, L. (2001). A new view of women’s sexual problems: Why new?
Why now? The Journal of Sex Research, 38, 89–96.
Tiegs, T. J., Perrin, P. B., Kaly, P. W., & Heesacker, M. (2007). My place
or yours?: An inductive approach to sexuality and gender role
conformity. Sex Roles, 56, 449–456.
Tolman, D. L. (1999). Femininity as a barrier to positive sexual health
for adolescent girls. Journal of the American Medical Women’s
Association, 54, 133–138.
Tolman, D. L., Striepe, M. I., & Harmon, T. (2003). Gender matters:
Constructing a model of adolescent sexual health. Journal of Sex
Research, 40, 4–12.
van Outsem, R. (2007). Sexually abusive behaviour in juveniles: Devi-
ant and non-deviant pathways. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 13,
169–179.
Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2005). Burnout among female indoor sex workers.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 627–639.
Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2008). Sexual violence and the MDGs. Interna-
tional Journal of Sexual Health, 20, 25–50.
Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2009). The risks and rights of sexualization: An
appreciative commentary on Lerum and Dworkin’s ‘‘Bad Girls
Rule’’. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 268–270.
Ward, L. M., & Harrison, K. (2005). The impact of media use on girls’
beliefs about gender roles, their bodies, and sexual relationships: A
research synthesis. In E. Cole & D. J. Henderson (Eds.), Featuring
females: Feminist analyses of media (pp. 3–23). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Weinhardt, L. S., Forsyth, A. D., Carey, M. P., Jaworski, B. C., &
Durant, L. E. (1998). Reliability and validity of self-report
measures of HIV-related sexual behavior: Progress since 1990
and recommendations for research and practice. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 27, 155–180.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1,
125–151.
Wood, W., Christensen, P. N., Hebl, M. R., & Rothgerber, H. (1997).
Conformity to sex-typed norms, affect, and the self-concept. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 523–535.
Young, I. M. (1990). Throwing like a girl and other essays in feminist
philosophy and social theory. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Zurbriggen, E. L., & Sherman, A. M. (2007). Reconsidering ‘‘sex’’ and
‘‘gender’’: Two steps forward, one step back. Feminism & Psychol-
ogy, 17, 475–480.