Manifestação do Duplo Padrão Sexual nas sociedades ocidentais (2011-2017): uma revisão abrangente

Abstract

Esta revisão abrangente analisa investigação publicada entre 2011 e 2017 (n = 46), que averiguou a emergência e a variação do Duplo Padrão Sexual (DPS) em sociedades ocidentais. Observa -se uma consistente manifestação do DPS na avaliação de condutas sexuais diversas. Há igualmente evidência de padrões sexuais alternativos positivos (igualitários liberais) e negativos (igualitários conservadores e invertidos). A emergência de DPS e a variação com padrões negativos indica que, nas sociedades ocidentais, a experiência (hetero)sexual é marcada por desigualdade de género e por padrões sexuais restritivos e punitivos. E, porque estes padrões podem limitar a liberdade sexual e o acesso de homens e mulheres a uma sexualidade positiva, devem ser alvo de desconstrução e substituição por outros, equitativos.

Development and evidence of validity of the new sexual double standard scale

“…In sum, the research in recent decades demonstrates that the SDS has withstood the test of time and is still a strongly-rooted gender norm reflecting and reinforcing inequality in heterosexual relationships (Amaro et al, 2021b;Bordini & Sperb, 2013;Crawford & Popp, 2003;Endendijk et al, 2020;Lamont, 2021). Offering a first strong argument for further investing in the comprehension of the SDS, it also notes that a more thorough understanding of the standard demands methods that take the bi-dimensionality and dynamic nature of the concept into account, toward up-to-date ways of operationalizing and measuring it (Álvarez-Muelas et al, 2020;Bordini & Sperb, 2013;Crawford & Popp, 2003;Endendijk et al, 2020).…”

“…Thus, although it lacks a conceptual structure of its own (Zaikman & Marks, 2017), the SDS is firmly grounded in the sexual gender roles and stereotypes, i.e., the social shared beliefs about traits and behaviors that are appropriate, expected, or unacceptable for men and for women, and that can be described through the dichotomous idea of the active, sexual man vs. the passive, emotional woman (Amaro et al 2021a;Eagly et al, 2004;Farvid, 2018;Fasula et al, 2014;Howard & Hollander, 1997). Recent review works have found that the SDS has weakened over the past several years, but have simultaneously shown that it continues to manifest itself frequently in the evaluation of particular forms of conduct, such as casual sex and having multiple sexual partners (e.g., Amaro et al, 2021b;Endendijk et al, 2020). The SDS has weakened and ceded ground to a Single Sexual Standard (SSS) that prescribes equality of freedom, judgement, and sanctioning, as well as to a Reversed Sexual Double Standard (reversed SDS) that prescribes less freedom, more negative judgment, and more severe punishment for men than for women.…”

“…This is consistent with the ongoing process of sexual liberalization and of degenderization of (hetero)sexuality that has taken place over the last decades in Western societies (Amaro et al, 2021a;Bordini & Sperb, 2013;Crawford & Popp, 2003;Endendijk et al, 2020;Farvid, 2018). However, this same process of social transformation has led to a displacement in the content of the SDS (e.g., from premarital sex to casual sex), which helps to explain why the standard has persisted through time and is still a reality that is important to know and to combat if we want to promote gender equality as well as free, safe and satisfying (hetero) sexual experiences (Amaro et al, 2021b;Bordini & Sperb, 2013;Endendijk et al, 2020).…”

“…Such results are repeated and reinforced thereafter. The SDS is recognizable in media discourses (e.g., of femininity vs. responsibility and danger, and masculinity vs. pleasure and risk); it manifests in adolescent dynamics outside or within social media networks (e.g., sexualized photos); it may also be recognized and accommodated even if a liberal SSS is preferred, with young people seeking to distance themselves from practices such as casualness or partner swapping, which they know are more sanctioned in women and which they assume can also condemn men (Amaro et al, 2021b). It also manifests itself in the evaluations that youth, adults, and college students make about involvement in casual sexual relationships or hookups, sharing space with the various alternative patterns (Amaro et al, 2021b).…”

“…The SDS is recognizable in media discourses (e.g., of femininity vs. responsibility and danger, and masculinity vs. pleasure and risk); it manifests in adolescent dynamics outside or within social media networks (e.g., sexualized photos); it may also be recognized and accommodated even if a liberal SSS is preferred, with young people seeking to distance themselves from practices such as casualness or partner swapping, which they know are more sanctioned in women and which they assume can also condemn men (Amaro et al, 2021b). It also manifests itself in the evaluations that youth, adults, and college students make about involvement in casual sexual relationships or hookups, sharing space with the various alternative patterns (Amaro et al, 2021b). The review by Endendijk et al (2020) which is concerned exclusively with experimental research (questionnaires, scales, and vignettes), and which is in fact the most complete for this type of study, is in line with what has been said so far -the SDS being particularly evident for the questions of sexual coercion, casual sex, and sexual initiation -but goes on to underline two issues of the greatest relevance.…”