|
Chapter Four
The Ancient Double Standard
DESCRIPTION OF THE DOUBLE STANDARD
THIS STANDARD IS KNOWN AS THE DOUBLE standard because it entails using one standard to evaluate male behavior and another standard to evaluate female behavior, making it possible for a man and a woman to be judged quite differently on the identical sort of behavior. It should be familiar to all Americans because it is our dominant, informal sexual standard. Most of the double-standard men to whom I spoke did not think of this standard as ideal and fully right. They rather viewed it as merely acceptable or permissable. Their ideal standard was very often abstinence. They justified their behavior by various rationalizations, such as "boys will be boys" and "that's the way the world is." Nevertheless, they did not seem to be too bothered by qualms or guilt feelings.1
The double standard is relevant for more than just sexual behavior. The double standard can be seen in action in almost all spheres where men and women meet—in education, in business, in politics, and in religion. There is a general tendency to pay men more for doing the same type of work and having the same qualifications. In 1958, the full-time salary for males was $4,927, and for females, $3,102. Also, when one compares men and women in the same area of work, men invariably earn more.1a There are cases where the explanation is given that women do not stay on the job as long as men because they marry and have babies, and thus they do not deserve as much. In some cases, these explanations may be the true reasons, but in many cases, they are just rationalizations for a person's feelings that women just do not deserve as much as men, that women somehow are, as Aristotle said, inferior by nature. The many middle-aged women who are not married, and not likely to give birth, and who still receive lower pay than similarly employed males are good examples of the frequent falsity of the "practical" explanation given above.
In the professional world, there is a similar situation. A woman doctor or lawyer often has a difficult time getting established.1b At least part of the explanation must be that many people, both men and women, feel that women would not be as good as men at something like medicine or law. Women are good at homemaking and child care but are not as competent at these other tasks—such is the reasoning of the double-standard believer. They are quite adamant, even though the scientific evidence is opposed to their views.2 It should be emphasized that the double-standard adherents include women as well as men. Many women are convinced the double standard is correct—just as many women were convinced feminism was wrong.
In religion, too, ample evidence of the double standard can be found. The first woman preacher appeared in this country a little over a century ago, and she still is a rarity. Many Americans find it difficult to listen to a woman tell them about right and wrong and about God. This seems "out of place" to many, for men are supposed to be dominant and women submissive, and how can a minister in a pulpit look submissive? Here again, women frequently are not allowed the same rights as men. The old Hebrew conceptions of "woman's place is in the home" and "the man should be dominant" are relevant. This should make it apparent why there is a double standard in politics also.
Much of this double-standard aura of our culture is changing, and women are being accepted more and more on an equal basis; it should be kept in mind, however, that despite the vast changes wrought by the feminists and the industrial revolution in the last century, there still is a strong recognizable double standard in America.3 The double standard in premarital sexual behavior is obvious in our norms which state that premarital coitus is wrong for all women, and thus women who indulge are bad women. Premarital coitus, however, is excusable, if not right, for all men, and thus men who indulge are not bad men.
SOME SOURCES OF THE DOUBLE STANDARD
Why are there so many cultures that hold to the double standard in sexual behavior and in other spheres also? Why, in the examination of historical cultures in the second chapter, was there noted such a strong acceptance of the double standard? Is it just "natural"? Answers to such questions are not easy. Here is what seems the most plausible explanation, but bear in mind that this is only an educated conjecture.
The core of the double standard seems to involve the notion of female inferiority. The standard gives men more rights than women and assumes such distribution is proper. It is not just a question of different roles—anyone looking fairly at the division of roles will see that women's roles are given low status as compared to men's roles. The particular role does not matter; whatever a woman does is valued less and whatever a man does is valued more, e.g., if men herd then herding is highly valued—if women herd, it is not. This is the state of affairs in double-standard societies.4
In searching for the origins of the double standard, one should try to discover why men viewed the female of the species as inferior. First, it should be clear that not all cultures did or do define women as inferior. Many non-literate societies today view women as equals, and, historically, Egypt, for part of her history, gave females relative equality.5 The vast majority of societies, however, did place women in a subordinate position.
Man's muscular strength, muscular co-ordination and bone structure may have made him a better hunter than woman; it may have made him more adept at the use of weapons. Couple this hunting skill with the fact that women would often be incapacitated due to pregnancy and child rearing, and we have the beginnings of male monopoly of power. Man would control the economic factors of life; thus, he would have a powerful hold on the female. A woman could also hunt and could certainly fish and gather berries or such, but she could probably not survive as well as the woman who had a male to help her. A man alone was at a disadvantage also. If he hunted and fished all day, he might not feel up to preparing his own food, making all his weapons, utensils, clothes, and shelter. He might also like to have someone who would supplement his food supply with some berries or lizards which had been caught near "home." It seems that there were good economic reasons for men and women to live together right from the beginning—economic reasons which supplemented the sexual motives and aided in keeping men and women in more permanent relationships. The ever present reason for men and women living together seems to be that man is not self-sufficient. Even today when people are self-sufficient economically, it can be seen that they are not self-sufficient emotionally. One need have little fear for the marriage institution—it is well-founded on the insufficiency of the isolated individual.
This sort of economic relationship, which early men and women may have formed thousands of years ago, afforded man the opportunity, though not the necessity, of usurping control of the relationship. Even though both man and woman needed each other, man's position was somewhat more advantageous since he brought home the all-essential food. Also, if such a division of labor prevailed, it meant that men would become more "worldly-wise" in military and political affairs, thereby increasing their power.
This need not always be the case. It was possible that since both men and women had work to do, they would view each other as equals, essentially as coworkers and would share in political leadership. It was also possible that because woman brought life into the world she would be afforded even more prestige than man. But the situation more often turned out in favor of male dominance since man did have the controlling factor in the economic sphere. However, there is nothing "natural" about the double standard. The same physical differences are present today, but in an urban-industrial society, they do not tend as much toward a double standard.
As agriculture developed and great cities grew, the acquisition of power meant greater possibilities of profit, thus perhaps increasing the desirability of usurping power. In any case, by five thousand years ago, man had gained political control as well as economic control in the Western world, and customs had been set up by the ruling group of males which gave man the dominant hand in social life. These double-standard customs are still with us.
There were many factors which supported the sexual aspect of the double standard. Inheritance rules in all the ancient cultures, except Egypt, gave the dominant property rights to male heirs. This meant that the sons of one's wife or one's daughter would inherit one's property. This sort of situation would certainly make a husband or father desirous of keeping his wife or daughter virginal outside of a marital relation. Otherwise these men might have property disputes with some illegitimate male child conceived by a wife or daughter.
Further reasons for the double standard may be found in the notion of property. If man considered woman as his servant, almost as a piece of valuable property, then the same notion of private ownership would apply. No daughter or wife should betray her father's or husband's property rights by giving herself without permission to another man. The Tenth Commandment made the view of women as property explicit and clear:
Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his man-servant, or his maid-servant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is thy neighbour's.6
Men were free to act as they pleased for no one owned them, although even their behavior was somewhat restricted by parental authority as exercised (usually) through the oldest male.
Jealousy and pride must have often entered into the sexual restrictions placed on women. If women were similar to property, and one wished to control the legitimacy of his heirs, he had to restrict female sexual behavior. One would be a fool in the eyes of the community if he failed at that restriction. Much of the anger of a husband whose wife has been false to him is based on the social disgrace of such behavior and not only on his own feelings concerning his wife. Pride and jealousy made a good team throughout history to reinforce the double standard.
In sum it would appear that man's physical abilities afforded him economic, political, and military advantages and made it possible for him to define woman as inferior. His attitude toward her as property to be jealously guarded, so as to avoid loss of pride and inheritance, also seems directly relevant to the presence of the double standard to regulate male-female relationships. With man in power in other areas, it is easy to conceive of his usurping special sexual privileges in addition. The type of sexual behavior encouraged by the double standard is thus pleasure-centered and body-centered for the male and chastity for the female.
This situation is quite similar to that existing between many dominant and submissive groups. For example, look at Negro-white relations in our own country. Many centuries ago the white man assumed his superiority to the Negro, and most of the legal and social rules regulating white-Negro relations reflect this white-supremacy notion. The white man is privileged to do many things which the Negro cannot. Likewise, most men can engage in premarital intercourse with little social criticism, while the female, who is the male's partner, will be strongly condemned. When man defines a group of people as inferior, he buttresses his judgment by giving that group low prestige and few privileges.7 Such was the case with the male-female relationships and therein lies the root of the double standard.
SUBTYPES: ORTHODOX AND TRANSITIONAL
It should be clear at the outset that there are two main subtypes of the double standard. One subtype I shall call the orthodox. The adherents of this subtype abide fully by the double standard and allow few, if any, exceptions from its dictates. The second subtype I shall call the transitional. This has become increasingly popular in the last century as shall be demonstrated in chapter ten. In this case, exceptions are made, and the woman who engages in premarital coitus because she is in love or engaged is not condemned. This is still the double standard, for men are allowed to engage in coitus for any reason—women only if in love or engaged. I have chosen to call this the transitional subtype, because it is a standard which is between the older orthodox double standard and the newer standard of permissiveness with affection which allows equal freedom to both men and women. In reading the discussion of the double standard, it would be well to keep in mind the differences between these two subtypes. The discussion will focus on the orthodox type of the double standard. However, the vast majority of the sexual behavior in both subtypes will be body-centered. The key difference is that the transitional subtype will also accept some person-centered coitus.
INITIAL DIFFICULTIES
The first characteristic of the double standard in premarital intercourse is that such a standard is self-contradictory. It supposedly allows sexual freedom to men but not to women. How is such opposed behavior possible? A man cannot have sexual freedom unless he has a woman with whom to exercise this freedom. But the double standard holds that no woman should engage in premarital coitus and thus no man is able to either! This is the sort of paradoxical situation brought about by the double standard.8
The men who favor a double standard must resolve this basic contradiction in some fashion. Historically, the situation was remedied by the gradual development of a class of prostitutes who would engage in sexual activity with men. This would still leave most of the females virginal and would afford a sexual outlet for men.9 This was the solution which the He-brews, Greeks, and Romans arrived at. Thus, it is clear why the double standard encourages prostitution. Of course, prosti-tion exists for other reasons besides the double standard. It affords an outlet for any system of sexual regulation, i.e., regardless of the sexual customs, some people will be unable to satisfy themselves thereby and may resort to prostitution.10
The connection between prostitution and the double standard is helpful in understanding the ambivalent attitudes prevailing toward prostitutes—how, on the one hand, they are thought of as bad and worthless women because they violate the code of chastity; yet, on the other hand, they are thought to be performing a necessary function for the double standard and thus are not without some prestige. After all, it is the violation of the double standard by women which enables men to abide by it.11
Up until the late nineteenth century, prostitution was one of the major answers to the double standard dilemma. It probably accounted for a good portion of the male's sexual outlet before marriage. But even in the nineteenth century, and increasingly as time passed, other women more and more supplemented the prostitutes as sources of body-centered sexual behavior for double-standard males.12 With the increased freedom women were obtaining in the twentieth century, came a change in sexual behavior. Many more women began engaging in premarital coitus of both the body-centered and person-centered types. Some men reacted to these women in an equalitarian fashion and did not question their right to equal sexual privileges, but most men probably felt that only "bad" women would indulge. Men began to look more and more for these women as sexual partners.
Traditionally, the double standard stated that a man should not try to seduce a "nice" girl. Many men copulated solely with prostitutes in order not to corrupt "nice" girls. But now the double-standard male was becoming more and more intimate with single women who were not prostitutes. Of course, this was not strictly a new event. But the frequency of such permissive female behavior was new, as were the opportunities a large city offered for taking advantage of such behavior. It should be noted here also that many double-standard men began to feel more compassion for the woman, since she was at times a neighborhood girl. It is probably here that the transitional subtype grew, and more men began to accept coitus for women if they were in love.
The single criterion of loss of virginity as "proof" of who was a "bad" woman is clearly not sufficient as a means of obtaining new "bad" women. All women are virginal at one time, and there must be a way to label women "bad" while they are still virginal so as to justify engaging in intercourse with them and making them "bad" non-virginal women. Double-standard males in the past, and today, pick some of their "recruits" from those women who display some desire to go astray through their action or dress—thus indicating that they are potentially "bad." Other women are obtained from groups which are thought of as inferior or as "different." This includes girls from lower-income classes, or different racial groups, or members of a different religion. These are some of the social criteria for finding potentially "bad" girls.13 Some double-standard men do not limit themselves to certain types and may try to have coitus with all the women they see socially in order to discover which girls are "bad." Virginity is still valued highly, and many men prefer non-virgins, but at young ages and in times of scarcity, "bad" virgins of the above types are substituted.
One can glean something of the old Christian attitude towards sex in the present-day double standard in America. The view that sex is evil and women who indulge are especially evil contains, for many, almost a religious fervor of conviction of the "badness" of non-virginal women. The non-virginal female is disliked and disrespected. She portrays the temptations the male feels. Accordingly, the virginal female is placed on a sort of pedestal by the double-standard male. She is pure and angelic and far removed from such lusty and somewhat dirty behavior as premarital sexual intercourse—so go the thoughts of the male. There are differences here among men—some of them feel very little animosity towards a non-virgin. But the worse the man thinks of the non-virgin, the better he thinks of the virgin. The male, in many cases, views himself as a likeable "devil" and the female as a lovable "angel." The two notions reinforce each other. The more devil he is, the more angelic he wants his love to be so as to purify him. There may well be here in this aspect of the double standard the roots of the idealization of women in romantic love.
I recall a pertinent incident during my employment in a clothing factory before I went to graduate school. One of the employees told me that he was now sure he was going to marry the girl to whom he was engaged. I asked him what had made him certain, and he said that he had checked quite carefully with his fiancee's past boyfriends and was now convinced that she was a virgin. I asked him if he would have broken off his engagement if he had found his fiancee to be non-virginal, and he emphatically replied yes. Even though he loved this girl and knew her as she was now, this past activity would have been enough to break off the relationship for, as he said, he felt a non-virgin must be a bad woman.14
Males who accept the transitional type may not think ill of a woman who engages in premarital coitus if she is engaged or in love. Otherwise, however, they too will not hesitate to remove the woman from their list of "nice girls."
WANDERLUST
Since this standard declares almost all female sex partners to be "bad," it would be expected that men would seek these partners away from their home neighborhoods or at least avoid incorporating these females into their close-friendship groups. This seems to be the reasoning of the double-standard males, in particular orthodox ones, in America today.15 Furthermore, women in the same neighborhood would avoid sexual activity with these men in order to save their reputations. Double-standard men switch partners rapidly; their lack of respect for the girl with whom they indulge often makes them feel disgusted with her. There is little attempt to get to know the girl in terms of personality traits—such girls are valued mainly for sexual pleasures.
The double standard seems also to increase the likelihood of some groups of women dating outside of their own neighborhoods. Many women reject the double standard restrictions placed upon them. They feel they can engage in sexual activity and still be "good" girls in their own eyes. These are the women who accept permissiveness with affection or permissiveness without affection. These females often date out-of-town men who do not know the double-standard males in their home neighborhoods. In this way, they can act as they like with these "out-of-town" men and have no fears about their reputations being ruined at home. Some of the girls who go outside for sexual partners are full double-standard adherents who believe coitus to be wrong for women, but they indulge for other reasons, e.g., to gain special economic gifts or go to places they ordinarily could not afford to attend—or to date men who usually would not go out with them.
Many country resorts serve similar mobility purposes for some of the more promiscuous girls and boys. They are well known for attracting a young crowd from many different cities. Girls and boys both vacation at such resorts often with the idea in mind that the anonymity of the resort, the chance of meeting a stranger, will afford them the proper setting for obtaining sexual intimacies without any word getting back to their home neighborhoods—these resorts provide a setting in which inhibitions can be abandoned. It seems that "distance makes the heart grow fonder."16 It should be clearly stated here that many millions of American women do not fit this description for they do not desire an escape from double-standard restrictions. Such females would be believers in female chastity or in the single standard of abstinence.
Double-standard men often find their "bad" women in those girls who are fleeing other double-standard males. This aspect of the double standard is encouraged by our urban-industrial development which allows a much wider range of acquaintances and encourages more liberal and permissive sexual attitudes on the part of females.
The mobility aspect leads to a definite confusion in the moral evaluation of women. For example, let us look at a girl who engages in light petting with her home-town double-standard boyfriend. This same girl may have engaged in sexual intercourse with two out-of-town boys, one of whom was double standard and the other single standard. This sort of situation would mean that her home-town double-standard boyfriend will think of her as a "good" girl; the double-standard out-of-town boyfriend will think of her as a "bad" girl, and the out-of-town single-standard boyfriend will not think ill of her because of her sexual behavior. This is an excellent example of the confusion present in the type of moral evaluation which the double standard contains. Such a confusing situation can lead to much conflict on the girl's part—she may find it difficult to have a clear conception of herself since so many people seem to judge her differently. We base a great deal of our self-evaluation on other people's feelings about us, and, in such cases as above, other people's feelings differ greatly. Additional conflict can occur when and if a double-standard male finds out that other men are classifying his "good" girl as a "bad" girl. This is probably a frequent occurrence, for these men take pride in telling others of their "conquests" and thus word travels quickly over double-standard communications.
VIRGINITY: LOST AND FOUND
This characteristic is connected with the "mobility effect." The contradiction here is derived from the fact that double-standard men believe non-virginal women to be "bad" and therefore desire to marry virgins. At the same time, however, their sexual standard makes them constantly strive to render as many women non-virginal as possible. This means that they are lowering their own chances of marrying a virgin. The more successful these men are in their search for sexual partners, the less are their chances of marrying a virgin. Even those transitional subtype males who accept non-virginal females when love or engagement is involved are participating in self-defeating behavior, because most of their sexual behavior is not so discriminate; they, therefore, do decrease the number of women whom they would want to marry.
Most of the double-standard men to whom I have spoken denied this as a real contradiction, for they hold they are lowering the number of virgins in groups outside of their home neighborhoods or groups to which their future mate does not belong. Since they will marry a girl from these other groups which they have not successfully "attacked," they feel they are not behaving in a contradictory fashion. The rationalization in this explanation is obvious as soon as one takes an over-all view. It is clear that, although certain groups of women may have been by-passed, it still is possible that other men were successful where one failed. Thus other men may be indulging in sexual relations with those women from whom one is planning to choose a wife. The former discussion showed that there is evidence that some women will give out-of-town dates more sexual privileges than home-town men. Therefore, the double standard insures that practically all groups of females will be under "attack" by some groups of men.
The "virginity paradox" can lead to the conflict mentioned before when a man discovers his girlfriend indulged with someone else. It may also lead to conflict when a husband discovers his bride is not virginal, or even to internal conflict when he discovers he is acting in a contradictory fashion. Such a situation certainly increases the amount of distrust and suspiciousness between men and women and opens up many new possibilities of conflict. The double standard seems to snare many individuals into a net of contradictory and unfulfilled desires, especially in an urban-industrial society such as ours.
Many women very strongly resent this contradictory virginity-attitude on the part of men. These women feel it most unfair for a man to date a girl, try to seduce her, and then if he succeeds, condemn her and cross her off his marriage-possibility list. Many girls find themselves upset when they become fond of a particular boy and would like to be more sexually intimate with him, but must keep restricting their advances for fear of losing his respect. Such restrictive behavior, such fear of disapproval for sexual behavior, may well make later sexual adjustment more difficult.17
Many girls who tease are merely playing the man's game. If men are so interested in sex, but dislike girls who "go too far," the logical thing to do, these girls feel, is to play up their sexual attributes to attract men and then restrict sexual behavior. The double-standard male creates his own "enemies"—he makes women use sex as a weapon instead of an expression of affection; in this case, the weapon is in the form of the tease. This sort of situation leads to the anomalous case of a female who, on the surface, seems highly-sexed but who internally may be quite frigid—a sweet "sexy" virgin whose dual nature may well cause her much internal conflict. Such a virgin is similar to wax fruit—in both cases the appearance may be appetizing but the object is incapable of fulfilling its promise. This situation also leads to an accent on a sensual type of sex which may constantly frustrate both persons in their attempt to maintain this sensual sort of attraction. In short, this sort of behavior makes people accent the surface aspects of sexual relations.
In previous times, in more rural societies, "virginity paradoxes" would not be as common.18 In those days, a woman was very much under the social controls of the small town and would not be able to easily escape these controls by meeting a different group of men in a different city. Public opinion would tell one who the "good" girls were. The growth of urban centers in the last hundred years then was quite disruptive of the double standard. It gave women a freedom of activity which they never had before. Feminism and other movements helped to further free women from the tight social restraints to which they formerly were subjected. Dating, too, has equali-tarian tendencies which conflict with the double standard. Accordingly, the contradictions inherent in the double standard have become enlarged and much more widespread in the last one hundred years. Both the "mobility effect" and the "virginity paradox" are consequences of this change.
THE DOUBLE STANDARD AND JUSTICE
Our notion of justice appears to hold that where two individuals co-operate in the performance of an activity, they should both be praised or blamed. It would seem that premarital sexual intercourse is such an instance and allows no mitigating circumstances.
In premarital coitus the male is most often the aggressor or at least he is quite willing to engage in such behavior. It is, thus, necessary to devise special reasons to allow the male to condemn the female for such action and still not condemn himself for being her partner. The major reason for such completely different judging of men and women would be some relevant difference between the sexes. In former times, the inferiority of women and their innate deficiencies were listed as reasons. There is an old Russian saying that best portrays this point of view: "A hen is no bird, a woman no human."18a Psychologists are in agreement that general intellectual capacity, as far as can be told, is equal in men and women. Training accounts for existent differences. Furthermore, genetics is clear in its stand on inheritance of physiological characteristics only. Ideas and morality are not inherited. Today these old reasons cannot be accepted. Because of this, new rationalizations have developed to support the old double standard. In my interviews of double-standard men, I found two main arguments which are often held. These arguments are put forth by transitional as well as orthodox adherents:
a) The female sex drive and sex desire is not as great as the
male's, and thus the woman has less compulsion to such
behavior.
b) The female takes a greater risk because she can become
pregnant and she is more easily condemned. Thus she
has more reason to abstain.
c) Differences in Sex Drive and Sex Desire. There is much scientific evidence which indicates the female sex drive (that which is inborn) is not by nature significantly less than the male's sex drive.19 In the first chapter, I mentioned several cultures, in which men and women are equal in their initiation of sexual activity and also cultures where women initiated more sexual activity than men. It seems clear that, if so trained, women would have as much desire for sexual intercourse as men do, and that whatever innate differences exist are quite capable of modification. Even with the present unequal training, there are many women highly desirous of sexual activity.20
Picture how men would behave sexually if they were brought up as women are. Boys would be told quite young they would one day marry and raise a family and this state of affairs was very desirable. When they reached puberty, instruction would be given about the dangers of sexual intercourse outside of marriage. They would be told if they did allow themselves to step out of line sexually, their lives would be ruined—that no girl would marry a boy who had lost his virginity. Moreover, even on a dating basis, girls would not respect non-virginal boys. In addition, these boys would be taught it was a "girl's world" and girls were allowed more freedom than boys and one must accept this. The boy's role would be to marry, care for his family, and not be too upset when girls had special sexual privileges for, after all, girls will be girls. Suffice it to say that if boys were brought up in this fashion, which, in large measure, is the way many girls are brought up today, the male's sex drive would also be inhibited—so inhibited he could not give vent to his sexual desires as easily as he does today.
Today the difference in sexual desires (desire is a combination of inborn drive and learning experience) is not as great as one might suppose. A century ago when many more women entered matrimony with no sexual experience, beyond perhaps a few kisses, there must have been a much wider disparity between male and female sexual desires. Today, however, it seems that many women (over half, according to recent studies) enter marriage non-virginal, and the majority of the virginal group has considerable experience in sexual behavior. An indication of this can be obtained from Kinsey's findings. For those virgins in his sample who had been kissed and who were born after 1910 the following percentages apply:
100 per cent—kissing
74 " " —deep kissing
72 " " —breast manipulation
32 " " —oral stimulation of breast
36 " " —received masturbation
24 " " —performed masturbation
17 " " —contacted bare male genitals with own
3 " " —received oral-genital contact
2 " " —performed oral-genital contact.21
The evidence from studies seems to show that petting of a fairly heavy nature is common among virgins. Today's virginal female, thus, is much different from her counterpart of 100 years ago. She is probably, in many cases, a woman who has strong sexual desires but who is striving to keep them within bounds. Kinsey stated that about 20 per cent of the virginal females in his sample stated they wanted to lose their virginity but had not yet had the proper opportunity.22 Exact figures are impossible to obtain, but from the available evidence, it is guessed that at least half of the virgins today are sexually "awakened" women. It seems, therefore, that the experience many of today's females have guarantees development of strong sexual desires. One key differ-ence may be that the female has built up, via training, more controls and thus does not yield to her desires as much as the male does.
The folklore about a male "needing" coitus more than a female has little basis in fact. No male has yet died from lack of coitus. As for speed of arousal, the female can be quite quickly aroused—witness evidence from other cultures. Further, the female climax can be brought on in a matter of minutes with proper clitoral stimulation.23
Finally, it should be added that even the present-day differences which do exist between men and women are not necessarily a "reasonable" basis for condemning female indulgence and allowing male indulgence. From a strictly logical and "reasonable" point of view, if some men desire sexual activity more than some women, this does not mean such desires are right and good or should be gratified. Even if it is assumed that desires should be satisfied, these particular men should be allowed to have more sexual activity than those particular women who are less desirous of such relations. Thus, lessened desire, even when present, may be an argument for less indulgence but not for complete abstinence— if it is an argument at all. Thin men may desire less food than fat men; this does not mean that thin men should starve and fat men should eat—it rather could imply that thin men should eat less than fat men, or fat men should diet or thin men should fatten up! In short, a difference is not necessarily an argument for continuing such a state of affairs. It rather may be an argument for equalizing the situation. Thus, the double-standard arguments concerning sex drives and desires are not objective supports of their position. What difference there is between men and women can be used just as easily as an argument for changing such differences as for maintaining them. This belief, then, is a social rationalization.
b) Differences in Risks Involved. The second common rationalization double-standard men put forth as a justification for their position is that women risk more than men because they can become pregnant and are more easily condemned, and thus women have more reason to abstain.
For simplicity's sake, I shall focus on the risk of pregnancy. How great is the risk of pregnancy? In chapter seven this issue will be dealt with at length. Suffice it to say here that authorities on birth control state that the male condom or the female diaphragm with jelly, when properly used, affords security.24 Therefore, if such care is taken, pregnancy has only a minute chance of occurring. Therefore, this consequence is not nearly as significant as it was before the development of rational means of contraception. The difference, of course, still exists.
One can point up the rationalization quality of the double-standard position without going further into this argument concerning pregnancy or other consequences such as social condemnation. One basic part of our notion of justice states that one should not entice another person to perform an action which would endanger this other person's well-being. If one believes the risk of pregnancy and other consequences to be significantly different between men and women, then it follows that men should abstain, so as to avoid bringing these undesirable consequences to women. If it is believed the risk of pregnancy and other consequences are not significantly different, then there is no reason to judge women differently. From a strictly logical approach, woman's chance of becoming pregnant may merely mean that she should be cautious or that men should not tempt her.
The explanations given by double-standard people today are thus often rationalizations after the fact, i.e., the origin of the double standard probably is somewhat close to that given earlier in this chapter; today, after thousands of years, people are calling this code into question and adherents are searching for reasons to support their position. One reason for adherence to the belief in the double standard seems quite simply to be that these people were brought up in a society which accepted it; most of them unthinkingly did likewise and became emotionally attached to this belief. This is true of most beliefs. As I pointed out in Chapter Three, one is hard put to fully support their beliefs rationally, and ultimately must resort to a value judgment or emotional appeal. However, beliefs do differ in terms of their inner consistency —in terms of their degree of conflict with other beliefs.
Most customs come into existence gradually and in an unplanned fashion. The justifications for their existence come later.25 It seems clear that the double standard, in both its orthodox and transitional forms, conflicts with our present-day equalitarian notion of fairness and justice, although in other ways it may be well integrated in our society.
c) Other Conflicts. Many other facets of American culture conflict with the double standard—for example, our notions concerning proper treatment and choice of associates. The separation of sex and affection in the double standard leads to behavior which, in one sense, is not socially acceptable. In general, our culture holds that one should associate with people who are respected and avoid people not respected or thought of as "bad." The double standard, however, demands that one associate with women who are not respected. The vast majority of double-standard interviewees said they felt disgusted with their female partner and themselves after the sexual act was over. Part of the reason for this disgust is the desire to get out of a situation which involves association with someone not respected, thereby entailing behavior believed to be wrong. Once the sexual forces are satiated, the other aspects of the situation come to the fore and lead to these disgust feelings.
Our culture holds that people should be treated as worthwhile, valuable individuals. In treating these particular women in a contrary fashion, the double-standard male often feels disgust for the entire relationship. But men are taught that coitus for them is acceptable and these women are "bad" anyway. They thus continue this behavior and derive what physical pleasure they can from it, despite these drawbacks.26
GENERAL INTEGRATION OF THE DOUBLE STANDARD
It has been shown how the double standard today is very much involved in conflicts and contradictions. It is an ancient sex code in a modern society. It is evident that the feminist movement, with its platform of equality, greatly weakened the double standard. Furthermore, the development of contraception meant that the fear of illegitimate offspring and venereal disease was no longer so applicable as a support for female virginity. Romantic love also favored, in its later stages, an equalitarian attitude towards women. Women were to be loved psychically as well as physically. Love and sex could be joined according to the later romanticists; this was opposed to the double standard. Finally, the industrial revolution and urbanism gave women greater opportunities to exercise their new-found rights, without the restrictions of small-town gossip and social controls. In sum, then, most of the recent changes in social organization and culture are opposed to the double standard and accentuate its conflicts and contradictions. The transitional subtype developed in response to these changing conditions, as an attempt to reduce conflict. It is believed that this standard has grown considerably in the last few generations. By and large, however, it is involved in the same basic conflicts as the orthodox subtype, even though it eases the tension by its more equalitarian aspects. Let it be clear—one can accept this standard in spite of all its conflicts. All standards have some conflicts; this one happens to have more than most. This standard, however, still has the buttress of being informally widely accepted and is a means of easy sexual pleasure for the male. Many people are able to abide by this standard and not feel excessive conflict. It is likely that the orthodox double standard is strongest at the lower social levels while the upper social levels would be more likely to modify their double-standard beliefs and accept the transitional double standard.27
Furthermore, it should be mentioned that the double standard helps maintain other aspects of our culture. The most obvious aspect of American culture that is strengthened is the notion of male dominance. The double standard gives men an excess of privileges over women in the sexual sphere, which helps buttress the notion of male dominance in many other areas. The man as the "head" of the family, as the protector of women, as the "breadwinner," as the leader, are all notions supported by the double standard. There are still many people who favor such notions of male dominance . and accordingly, there are many people who favor the double standard. If the double standard in sexual behavior disappears, such notions will be seriously affected. A culture or a society is an integrated system, and if one part is altered, it will most often affect many other parts. The events of last century illustrate the direction and types of changes involved in the weakening of the double standard. Many Americans today are caught in a dilemma, for they approve of many of the changes which have caused the weakening of the double standard, and yet they are still emotionally attached to parts of the double standard.28
1. It is relevant to add here that I examined numerous college textbooks on "marriage and the family" in order to see if they contained any information on the double standard. Not one of these texts contained more than the briefest mention of this standard, and none of them gave the reader any understanding beyond an occasional statement that the double standard was weakening. Ira L. Reiss, "The Double Standard in Premarital Sexual Intercourse: A Neglected Concept," Social Forces, XXXIV (March, 1956), 224-30. See the above article for a listing of these textbooks.
1a. U. S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports: Consumer Income, Series 1260 (Washington, D.C., January 15, I960), pp. 19, 40-44. For full-time primary and secondary school teachers in 1958, males earned an average of $5,651, and females, $4,261. Of course, some of this is due to males having higher jobs. But then, why do they get the higher jobs?
1b. Josephine J. Williams, "Patients and Prejudice: Lay Attitudes Toward Women Physicians," American Journal of Sociology, LI (January, 1946), 283-87.
2. Johnson E. Fairchild (ed.), Women, Society and Sex (New York:
Sheridan House, 1952). This is a collection of thirteen articles on many
phases of woman's place in American society today. Some of them are
quite good in giving insight into the effect of the double standard on
women today. For recent evidence on working women see the excellent
source, Robert W. Smuts, op. cit., especially pp. 104-9.
3. In a small research conducted in 1958 on students in Virginia by
myself and R. W. Kernodle, it was found that the girls wanted to marry a
man "they could look up to" but they did not want a man who would "help them in making decisions." Boys had only small desires for a "woman they could look up to" and were more likely to want a girl who would "understand their moods and stimulate their ambition." Thus, the double standard is still active, not in a radical "master-servant" form, but in a more equalitarian, but still unequal version; at least that is the implication of this research. Here, too, we find that the double standard is not something fully imposed on women, for women seem to "need" it and want it in some form. This, of course, has changed and will continue to change in tune. It would be interesting to investigate whether women in certain groups are now more double standard than men.
4. Some recent evidence on this was reported at the 1958 Southern
Sociological Society meetings: George L. Maddox, "Occupational Pres-
tige: Some Empirical Applications of the North-Hatt Rating Scale." Evi-
dence showed women and men were ranked differently on the same jobs
by most people and pay differed also.
5. For more information on Egypt, see Everyday Life in Ancient Times;
Chambliss, op. cit., chap. iii; and Brinton, et al., op. cit., Vol. I, chap. i.
6. Deuteronomy 5:18. One's wife is clearly listed here along with the male's other possessions or property. For a comparison of the property view of women and Negroes, see Myrdal, op. cit., pp. 1073-79.
7. Robert K. Merton, op. cit., chap. xi, "The Self-fulfilling Prophecy." This reading shows the mechanisms which lead a group defined as inferior to actually become inferior in many ways.
8. A classic example of the effects of the double standard, written in
the nineteenth century, but still containing much of merit for us today is:
Guy de Maupassant, A Woman's Life (New York: Lion Books, 1954).
9. The double standard thus is an "evasion," i.e., it is a social custom
which evades the rulings of another social custom; in this case the
"evaded" custom is abstinence. By means of this evasion, abstinence
tends to increasingly become a matter of "lip service" for many people
and pressures toward more permissive changes are temporarily channeled
into the double standard evasion. See Robin M. Williams, Jr., American
Society (New York: Knopf, 1956), chap. x. Speak-easies during Prohibi-
tion were a similar type of evasion which temporarily relieved the pres-
sures toward repeal. The double standard is for more conservative groups
a "compensatory custom" rather than an "evasion." In these groups, the
double standard does not really evade abstinence, for many of these
people still accept abstinence and feel guilty—in these cases it just "com-
pensates" for the strain between abstinence and sexual desires.
10. For a statement concerning the "reasons" for prostitution but one
which does not deal explicitly with the double standard, see Kingsley
Davis, "The Sociology of Prostitution," American Sociological Review, II
(October, 1937), 744-55.
11. For lower educational- and occupational-class males, prostitution
is still an important sexual source. See Kinsey, Human Male, p. 376.
12. Ibid., pp. 599-603 and chart on p. 410.
13. William F. Whyte, "A Slum Sex Code," American Journal of Sociology, XLIX (July, 1943), 24-31. This account applies to most double-standard areas and not just slum areas, although lower-income groups may be more double standard. Much of this article gives empirical support to many of our assertions. Kinsey found that the lower educational and occupational groups had more premarital coitus—for men with an eighth grade education, about 90 per cent had premarital coitus; for college men the rate was about 60 per cent. Ehrmann cites strong evidence of high percentages of dates with lower-class females and of several times higher rates of intercourse with these lower-class females. See Winston W. Ehrmann, "Influence of Comparative Social Class of Companion Upon Premarital Heterosexual Behavior," Marriage and Family Living, XVIII (February, 1955), 48-53. See also Ehrmann, Premarital Dating Dehavior, chap. iv.
14. Three plays which illustrate this aspect of our double standard are:
Tennessee Williams, Streetcar Named Desire (New York: New Directions,
1940); Sidney Kingsley, "Detective Story," in Best Plays of 1948-49 (New
York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1949); Eugene O'Neill, Anna Christie
(New York: Boni and Liveright, 1923).
15. Besides my own interviewing, there is the evidence, previously
quoted, of Whyte's, Ehrmann's, and Kinsey's studies on men. See Kinsey,
Human Male, p. 561 for additional evidence. For an interesting view of
such behavior in Spain, see G. Brenan, "Courtship in Granada," Atlantic,
August, 1957, pp. 33-38.
16. Such resorts are "compensatory customs" of the sort I spoke of in
chap. iii, and earlier in this chapter.
17. For support on this from a recent research, see Eugene A. Kanin and David H. Howard, "Postmarital Consequences of Premarital Sex Adjustments," American Sociological Review, XXIII (October, 1958), 556-62. See chap. ix of my book for a fuller discussion of this point. Kanin and Howard found that, although the restrictive background was a hindrance, it often was overcome in marriage.
18. For a most entertaining novel about a rock which was a foolproof test of virginity, a novel which reveals much of the confusion and humor contained in the search for virginity and non-virginity, see Margaret Sharp, The Stone of Chastity (New York: Avon Publishing Co., 1955).
18a. Quoted by Alexander Goldenweiser in Freda Kirchwey (ed.), Our Changing Morality (New York: A. and C. Boni, 1924), p. 129.
19. Ford and Beach, op. cit.; this is probably the best single source for such references. Some studies do report differences such as periodicity in female sex drive and greater susceptibility to psychological stimulants in male sex drive. Ford and Beach's view is that such differences do not make the male sex drive innately stronger than the female's, and, further, that much of such differences are due to learned variables and not inborn factors. For a similar conception, see Margaret Mead, Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (New York: Mentor Books, 1950), especially Part IV. The psychological differences between men and women, such as men thinking more aggressively of holding an attractive woman and women thinking more submissively of being held, may be due largely to differential cultural training and not to any biological differences nor to "female modesty." Kinsey's findings that man's sex outlet is highest in the late teens and woman's is highest in the late twenties and early thirties is not conclusive evidence of sex-drive differences. Sex outlet is not necessarily a reflection of sex drive. One's sexual outlet frequently increases due to frustrations in non-sexual areas. Learned inhibitions prevent many people from giving vent to a sex drive which is stronger than that of some other people who engage in sexual activity quite frequently. It would seem quite possible that women have higher frequencies of sex much later than men because of the inhibition barriers which have to be broken down. Men are freed quite early and after an initial "fling" may settle down to a more regular rate of indulgence. This may be the explanation of such differences. Learned factors again seem of most import. In any case the differences which may exist do not seem to be in terms of inborn strength of sexual drives.
20. Kinsey, Human Female, p. 688. Kinsey found that about one-third
of the women equalled the men in their sensitivity to psychological stimuli.
21. Kinsey, Human Female, pp. 254-55.
22. Ibid., p. 314. Ehrmann, Premarital Dating Behavior, p. 46. Ehrmann
found that about half of his virginal women had engaged in breast or gen-
ital petting.
23. Kinsey, Human Female, p. 163. Most females reached orgasm by
masturbation in less than four minutes. The greater time required in coitus
may be due to difficulty in contacting the clitoris and inhibitions. This speed
of orgasm indicates similarity between men and women.
24. Robert L. Dickinson, M.D., Techniques of Conception Control
(Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1950), p. 24, and passim.
25. Many times these shared rationalizations are acting as "compensa-
tory beliefs," i.e., they help maintain the double standard despite the fact
that it conflicts with other parts of our culture by somewhat compensating
for the strain of such a clash via their compensatory rationalizations.
26. Another reason for "disgust" feelings is the fact that many double-
standard men feel that abstinence is, in one sense, "really" right, and thus
they feel they are doing something wrong. Such conflict may well be
stronger among middle-class males who are more indoctrinated with ab-
stinence.
27. See Whyte, op. cit. This is a somewhat debatable point, and one we
shall return to later in the text.
28. There is a wide variety of evidence concerning the strength of the
double standard today. For example, Kinsey found that the average male
born after 1910 had a total of 1,523 orgasms before marriage, from all
sources. The comparable figure for females was 223. There were also large
differences in the number of partners in coitus. Only 6 per cent of the
women had more than 10 partners, while 23 per cent of the men had more
than 10 partners. Kinsey, Human Female, pp. 519-20, 683. Burgess and
Wallin also found such significant differences. Twenty-two per cent of the
men had more than 24 partners in all their sexual activity (kissing, petting,
etc.), whereas only 5 per cent of the women had this many partners. Ehr-
mann and Terman report similar findings. All of this indicates that, al-
though weakened, the double standard in many ways is still very much
with us.
|
