Eine interessante Studie behandelt die Frage, wer promiske Frauen abwertet:
Across human societies, female sexuality is suppressed by gendered double standards, slut shaming, sexist rape laws, and honour killings. The question of what motivates societies to punish promiscuous women, however, has been contested. Although some have argued that men suppress female sexuality to increase paternity certainty, others maintain that this is an example of intrasexual competition. Here we show that both sexes are averse to overt displays of female sexuality, but that motivation is sex-specific. In all studies, participants played an economic game with a female partner whose photograph either signalled that she was sexually-accessible or sexually-restricted. In study 1, we found that men and women are less altruistic in a Dictator Game (DG) when partnered with a woman signalling sexual-accessibility. Both sexes were less trusting of sexually-accessible women in a Trust Game (TG) (study 2); women (but not men), however, inflicted costly punishment on a sexually-accessible woman in an Ultimatum Game (UG) (study 3). Our results demonstrate that both sexes are averse to overt sexuality in women, whilst highlighting potential differences in motivation.
Zu den Unterschieden in dem letzten Versuch:
Und aus der Diskussion in der Studie:
These findings suggest that, although men are less generous towards sexually-accessible women (study 1), they do not seek to actively punish them (study 3). Although more research is needed to understand the exact process, this bias can be viewed as pragmatic: when women offer low paternity certainty, men should invest low sums to gain sexual access; when paternity certainty is high, men should be more willing to invest. But it is non-rational to inflict costly punishment on a woman that he is not romantically involved with, as he is unaffected by an unknown woman’s sexual behaviour. As such, men’s punishment behaviour is not affected by a target woman’s sexual-accessibility.
These findings are difficult to reconcile with male control theories of female sexual suppression. Proponents of this view have typically argued that men suppress women as a class, and are motivated to punish all forms of female sexuality (Travis & White, 2000; Rudman et al., 2013). Our findings, however, suggest a more nuanced approach is needed. As we have seen, men seem disinterested in suppressing women’s sexual autonomy by means of costly punishment. Although prejudice undoubtedly exists, the evidence suggests that men’s behaviour is more flexible than has been previously assumed by male suppression theories.
Our findings also suggest that women are motivated to punish sexually-accessible rivals. This conforms with the suggestion that women coördinate to keep the cost of sex high (Baumeister et al., 2002; Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). To achieve this, they contend, women must coöperate by restricting sexual access. This is undermined if some women lower the cost of sex. For example, if all women demand marriage as a prerequisite for sex, more men will be willing to invest early in relationships. But if some women offer access to casual sex, men can choose either short- or long-term relationships. Consequently, a woman who offers sexual access, but at a high cost (e.g., after marriage), may find her bargaining power diminished. It is interesting to note that there was a main effect of participant sex, such that women were more likely than men to punish their opponent, independent of the experimental condition. This might reflect that intrasexual competition is present even when female participants are paired with a non-sexualised opponent (Sutter et al., 2009). Alternatively, this might reflect chivalric behaviour among male participants towards female partners (Eckel & Grossman, 2001).
Aus einer Besprechung der Studie:
In the study, participants played one of three kinds of economic decision-making games. The participants were led to believe they were playing against a female opponent in real-time, but were actually only interacting with computerized responses.
The opponents varied in whether they appeared to be sexually accessible or sexually restricted. For some participants, the opponent was depicted as a woman wearing a tight, red outfit and an abundance of makeup. For others, the opponent was depicted as a woman wearing loose-fitting clothing with less makeup.
The researchers found that both male and female participants were less willing to share money with a woman wearing the tight outfit. The participants also trusted sexually-accessible opponents with a financial investment less than sexually-restrictive opponents.
Women, but not men, were also willing to inflict punishments on a sexually-accessible female opponent who made an unfair offer, even though it left them empty-handed as well.
Given the choice between receiving a small sum of money while their opponent took a large sum or having neither player receive any money at all, women tended to pick the latter option.
The study — like all research — includes some limitations. The researchers recruited nearly 1,000 participants, but the vast majority were from the United Kingdom — a country with a relatively high level of gender equality.
Nevertheless, the findings suggest that both sexes perpetuate prejudiced behaviors towards sexually-accessible women but for different reasons. The researchers believe that men seek to avoid being duped into investing in a child that isn’t their own, while women seek to keep the cost of sex high or wish to sabotage potential sexual rivals.
“More broadly, our results find that sexual suppression cannot be described as being either male- or female-driven, and that more nuanced models are needed to understand society’s propensity to suppress female sexuality,” the researchers said
Retten kann man die Story natürlich noch, wenn man anführt, dass die Frauen sich selbst kontrollieren, gerade weil sie in einem Patriarchat leben und insofern sogar die Frauenunterdrückung von Frauen geleistet werden muss (internalisierter Sexismus).