Eine Studie untersucht, wie Frauen und Männer zu Personen ihres eigenen Geschlechts mit vielen Sexualpartnern stehen:
Prior research finds that sexually permissive individuals are judged more negatively than nonpermissive peers, placing them at risk of social isolation. Based on the positive assortment principle (i.e., preferences for similarity in attributes in close relationships), we examined whether participants’ own permissiveness mitigated negative judgments of permissive others in the same-sex friendship context. College students (N = 751) evaluated a hypothetical same-sex target with either 2 (nonpermissive) or 20 (permissive) past sex partners on 10 friendship-relevant outcomes. Participant permissiveness attenuated some negative evaluations. However, preferences were rarely reversed, and no moderation was found in five outcomes, suggesting the role of permissiveness-based positive assortment is limited, and evolutionary concerns may take precedence. Partial support for the sexual double standard was also found.
Quelle: Birds of a feather? Not when it comes to sexual permissiveness
Aus der Studie:
Sexual permissiveness can be defined as attitudes or behaviors that are more liberal or extensive than what is normative in a social group. It can include actual or desired frequent, premarital, casual, group, or extradyadic sex, sex with many partners, early sexual debut, or even nonverbal cues signalizing availability (e.g., provocative clothing).
There are evolutionary and sociocultural reasons for the undesirability of permissiveness across interpersonal contexts, including same-sex friendships. Permissive people are more likely to be sexually unfaithful to a mate (Bailey, Kirk, Zhu, Dunne, & Martin, 2000) and to poach someone else’s mate (Schmitt, 2004). This is costly for both sexes: It threatens paternity certainty for men, and continued provision of partner resources for women (Buss & Schmitt, 1993)
This renders permissive individuals undesirable as partners as well as close same-sex friends, and distancing oneself from permissive friends could be an effective mate guarding strategy (Bleske & Shackelford, 2001).
Weitere Kosten einer solchen Freundschaft unter Frauen wäre „Einordnung nach Gesellschaft“, also der Gedanke, dass man eben nach seinen Freunden beurteilt wird und „Konkurrenzdenken“. Man kann den Preis für etwas eben höher ansetzen, wenn er daneben nicht von der Konkurrenz billig weggegeben wird
Aus einer Besprechung der Studie:
While men showed little interest in the perceived sexual permissiveness of their peers by only negatively grading more sexually active men on two aspects, a dislike of overt sexuality and “mate guarding,” women instead negatively graded the more promiscuous women on nine out of 10 of friendship variables.
Even more surprising for the researchers was the discovery that even women with highly liberal attitudes towards sex or high numbers of sexual partners still rejected their permissive peers
“Sexually permissive women are ostracized for being ‘easy,’ whereas men with a high number of sexual partners are viewed with a sense of accomplishment,” said Vrangalova. “What surprised us in this study is how unaccepting promiscuous women were of other promiscuous women when it came to friendships – these are the very people one would think they could turn to for support.”
As for why, Vrangalova speculated that the cause may be due to women wishing to distance themselves from peers that could be considered “slutty” in fear of having the label applied to themselves, thus leaving many sexually permissive women with very few female friends at all.
Also selbst Schlampen mögen eigentlich keine Schlampen und wollen lieber „anständigere“ Freundinnen. Die Bereitschaft zu Sex ist eben auch eine Form der intrasexuellen Konkurrenz unter Frauen.
Und aus einer anderen Besprechung:
Across all female participants, women — regardless of their own promiscuity — viewed sexually permissive women more negatively on nine of ten friendship attributes, judging them more favorably only on their outgoingness. Permissive men only identified two measures, mate guarding and dislike of sexuality, where they favored less sexually active men as friends, showing no preference or favoring the more promiscuous men on the eight other variables; even more sexually modest men preferred the non-permissive potential friend in only half of all variables.
The authors posit that evolutionary concerns may be leading men and women to disapprove of their bed-hopping peers as friends. They may actually be seeking to guard their mates from a threat to their relationship, Vrangalova said.
Also insgesamt eine sehr negative Wertung der Frauen. Das verstärkt natürlich auch die Wirkung bei Männern. Wer immer mit „Schlampen“ rumhängt, der wird sich eben von anderen Frauen anhören müssen, dass sie dazu keine Lust haben.
Alles Evolution 