The Madonna-Whore Dichotomy Is Associated With Patriarchy Endorsement: Evidence From Israel, the United States, and Germany. Rotem Kahalon et al. Psychology of Women Quarterly, May 2, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684319843298
Abstract: The madonna-whore dichotomy denotes polarized perceptions of women as either good and chaste or as bad and promiscuous. In the present research, we examined the correlates of madonna-whore dichotomy among samples of heterosexual Israeli, U.S., and German women and heterosexual U.S. and German men. Demonstrating cross-cultural generalizability, madonna-whore dichotomy endorsement correlated with endorsement of patriarchy-supporting ideologies across samples. U.S. (but not German) men’s madonna-whore dichotomy endorsement negatively correlated with their sexual satisfaction in romantic relationships, which in turn predicted lower general relationship satisfaction. Among women, madonna-whore dichotomy endorsement did not correlate with sexual or general relationship satisfaction. These findings (a) support the feminist perspective on the madonna-whore dichotomy, which points to the role of the stereotype in policing women and limiting their sexual freedom, and (b) provide evidence that madonna-whore dichotomy endorsement can have personal costs for men. Increasing awareness to the motivations underlying the madonna-whore dichotomy endorsement and its costs can be beneficial at the social and personal levels for women and men, by providing knowledge that may help in developing focused interventions to change existing perceptions and scripts about sexuality, and perhaps foster more satisfying heterosexual relationships.
Keywords: madonna-whore dichotomy, gender attitudes, sexual satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, sexism, patriarchy-supporting ideologies
Saturday, June 15, 2019
It may be that open relationships are common in the gay male community, because gay men benefit psychologically from both relationships and from casual sexual activity
Gay men, casual sex, and psychological well-being. Jeremy Bolton. PhD Thesis, Alliant International University, 2019. https://search.proquest.com/openview/378799404c75ab693c6335008cc5f517/
Abstract: Casual sex is common in the gay male community. Gay men typically have more partners and engage in more types of exual activities than heterosexualmen. Despite this, there is little in the way of empirical evidence regarding the impact casual sexual activity may have on gay men’s mental health. Traditionally, voices within the gay male community, and especially early gay rights leaders, have claimed that casual sex is integral to gay male identity and politics. Others in the gay male psychotherapeutic and self-help community have associated casual sexual activity with emotional woundedness. Evidence drawn from evolutionary psychology and primarily heterosexual studies on casual sex have suggested that casual sexual activity is likely to have a positive benefit for gay men. This study collected data from 152 gay men via an on line survey.The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Demographic and relationship status information were collected, as well as information about the participants’ sexual activity over the previous 12 months. Sexual activity information included the number of sex partners, the number of times they had engaged in group sex, and the primary relational context of the majority of their sexual activity. Measures of psychological well-being were also utilized. The results showed that casual sexual activity had a significant positive influence on the participants’ psychological well-being (β=0.25, p<.005). The latent Demographics variable utilized, which was indicated by relationship status and age, also had a positive influence on participants’ psychological well-being (β=0.81,p<.005). The results suggest that gay men benefit psychologically from both casual sex and relationships. It may be that open relationships are common in the gay male community, because gay men may naturally tend towards open relationships in order to benefit psychologically from both relationships and from casual sexual activity. The results suggest that clinicians treating gay men need to avoid bias against casual sexual activity, as casual sexual activity can have psychological benefits for gay men.
Abstract: Casual sex is common in the gay male community. Gay men typically have more partners and engage in more types of exual activities than heterosexualmen. Despite this, there is little in the way of empirical evidence regarding the impact casual sexual activity may have on gay men’s mental health. Traditionally, voices within the gay male community, and especially early gay rights leaders, have claimed that casual sex is integral to gay male identity and politics. Others in the gay male psychotherapeutic and self-help community have associated casual sexual activity with emotional woundedness. Evidence drawn from evolutionary psychology and primarily heterosexual studies on casual sex have suggested that casual sexual activity is likely to have a positive benefit for gay men. This study collected data from 152 gay men via an on line survey.The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Demographic and relationship status information were collected, as well as information about the participants’ sexual activity over the previous 12 months. Sexual activity information included the number of sex partners, the number of times they had engaged in group sex, and the primary relational context of the majority of their sexual activity. Measures of psychological well-being were also utilized. The results showed that casual sexual activity had a significant positive influence on the participants’ psychological well-being (β=0.25, p<.005). The latent Demographics variable utilized, which was indicated by relationship status and age, also had a positive influence on participants’ psychological well-being (β=0.81,p<.005). The results suggest that gay men benefit psychologically from both casual sex and relationships. It may be that open relationships are common in the gay male community, because gay men may naturally tend towards open relationships in order to benefit psychologically from both relationships and from casual sexual activity. The results suggest that clinicians treating gay men need to avoid bias against casual sexual activity, as casual sexual activity can have psychological benefits for gay men.
Size Matters After All: Experimental Evidence that Sexually Explicit Material Consumption Influences Genital and Body Esteem in Men
Size Matters After All: Experimental Evidence that SEM Consumption Influences Genital and Body Esteem in Men. Kaylee Skoda, Cory L. Pedersen. SAGE Open, June 14, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019857341
Abstract: Previous research has found that images depicted in the mainstream media have a negative influence on self-esteem, particularly among women. With the ease of accessibility and distribution of sexually explicit material (SEM) in recent years, due largely to the rise of the Internet, it has been postulated that consumers of SEM may experience reduced self-esteem in an effect similar to that found in research on exposure to mainstream media imagery. This experimental investigation explored whether exposure to SEM influenced self-esteem in consumers and whether this effect was comparable with that of exposure to mainstream media. Male and female participants were randomly assigned to no imagery, mainstream media imagery, or SEM imagery conditions and asked to report levels of overall global self-esteem, as well as levels of body-specific and genital-specific self-esteem. Mean scores were significantly lower for female participants relative to males overall, but exposure to SEM imagery revealed a significant negative effect on body-specific and genital-specific self-esteem among men only. Implications and limitations of these findings are discussed.
Keywords: sexually explicit material, pornography, media, self-esteem, body image, genitalia
Abstract: Previous research has found that images depicted in the mainstream media have a negative influence on self-esteem, particularly among women. With the ease of accessibility and distribution of sexually explicit material (SEM) in recent years, due largely to the rise of the Internet, it has been postulated that consumers of SEM may experience reduced self-esteem in an effect similar to that found in research on exposure to mainstream media imagery. This experimental investigation explored whether exposure to SEM influenced self-esteem in consumers and whether this effect was comparable with that of exposure to mainstream media. Male and female participants were randomly assigned to no imagery, mainstream media imagery, or SEM imagery conditions and asked to report levels of overall global self-esteem, as well as levels of body-specific and genital-specific self-esteem. Mean scores were significantly lower for female participants relative to males overall, but exposure to SEM imagery revealed a significant negative effect on body-specific and genital-specific self-esteem among men only. Implications and limitations of these findings are discussed.
Keywords: sexually explicit material, pornography, media, self-esteem, body image, genitalia
Nonreligious and religious participants had similar levels of empathy and showed similar patterns of moral reactions to different moral violations involving both disgusting and nondisgusting contents
Rabelo, A. L. A., & Pilati, R. (2019). Are religious and nonreligious people different in terms of moral judgment and empathy? Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rel0000277
Abstract: Benevolence, kindness, and empathy are valued virtues among many of the world’s major religions. It is common that people in many cultures see religion as the source of these moral virtues and that one must believe in God to be moral. Despite these widespread assumptions about the associations of religion with morality, some studies raise doubts about the causal connection between them. The main goal of the present study was to test whether religious participants differ from nonreligious ones in terms of how extreme their judgments about moral violations are, how empathic they are, and how disgusting they consider moral violations with disgusting content. It is also our purpose to describe moral judgment processes in an understudied cultural context that has a relevant indigenous characteristic associated with morality. Six hundred fifty-six participants read 6 moral scenarios describing moral violations involving disgusting or nondisgusting contents. They reported their moral reactions using a moral judgment and a moral disgust scale. Measures of empathy, religiosity, religious affiliation, and sociodemographic questions were included in the study. Nonreligious and religious participants had similar levels of empathy and showed similar patterns of moral reactions to different moral violations involving both disgusting and nondisgusting contents. Across 6 moral scenarios, both groups agreed on the most morally wrong and the most disgusting moral violations in similar magnitude. These results question the commonly assumed moral deficit in nonreligious people and support the idea that they can be like religious people when it comes to empathy and judging moral violations.
---
Portuguese version of the moral scenarios used in Rabelo and Pilati (2019). DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rel0000277
In the following scenarios, “errado” (wrong) was exchanged by “nojento” (disgusting) in the moral disgust scale. We only included the version of the final question associated with the moral judgment scale for the sake of conciseness.
Dog (Cachorro)
O cachorro de Francisco foi morto por um carro em frente à sua casa. Francisco ouviu falar que na China as pessoas costumam comer carne de cachorro e ele estava curioso sobre como era o gosto dela. Então ele cortou o corpo do cachorro, cozinhou e o comeu no jantar. Quão errado é que Francisco coma o seu cachorro no jantar?
Boy (Criança)
Seu avião caiu no Himalaia. Os únicos sobreviventes são você, um homem e um menino jovem. Vocês três viajam durante dias lutando contra o vento e o frio extremo. Sua única chance de sobreviver é conseguir chegar a um pequeno vilarejo no outro lado da montanha, a vários dias de distância. O menino tem uma perna quebrada e não pode se mover muito rapidamente. As chances de ele sobreviver à jornada são praticamente zero. Sem comida, você e o outro homem provavelmente irão morrer também. O outro homem sugere que você sacrifique o menino e coma seus restos mortais pelos próximos dias. Quão errado é matar esse menino para que você e o outro homem possam sobreviver à sua jornada em segurança?
Cat (Gato)
Mateus está brincando com o seu novo gatinho tarde da noite. Ele está vestindo apenas o seu bermudão e o gatinho anda às vezes sobre os seus genitais. Eventualmente, isso excitou Mateus, e ele começa a esfregar os seus órgãos genitais nus ao longo do corpo do gatinho. O gatinho ronrona e parece gostar do contato. Quão errado é que Mateus se esfregue contra o seu gatinho?
Wallet (Carteira)
Você está andando na rua quando se depara com uma carteira caída no chão. Você abre a carteira e descobre que ela contém várias centenas de reais em notas bem como a carteira de motorista do dono. Pelos cartões de crédito e outros itens na carteira, é bem claro que o dono da carteira é rico. Você, por outro lado, tem passado por tempos difíceis recentemente e poderia realmente fazer uso de algum dinheiro extra para si mesmo. Quão errado é para você manter o dinheiro que encontrou na carteira para ter mais dinheiro para si mesmo?
CV (Currículo)
Você tem um amigo que tem tentado encontrar um trabalho ultimamente sem muito sucesso. Ele imaginou que seria mais provável que ele fosse contratado se ele tivesse um currículo mais impressionante. Ele decidiu colocar algumas informações falsas no seu currículo para torná-lo mais impressionante. Ao fazer isso, ele finalmente conseguiu ser contratado, superando vários candidatos que eram realmente mais qualificados do que ele. Quão errado foi o seu amigo colocar informações falsas em seu currículo para ajudá-lo a encontrar emprego?
Trolley (Trem)
Você está no volante de um trem correndo rápido se aproximando de uma bifurcação nos trilhos. Nos trilhos se estendendo à esquerda, está um grupo de cinco trabalhadores ferroviários. Nos trilhos se estendendo à direita, está um único trabalhador ferroviário. O único jeito de evitar as mortes desses trabalhadores é apertar um interruptor no seu painel de instrumentos que irá fazer o trem seguir à direita, causando a morte do trabalhador ferroviário que está sozinho. Quão errado é que você aperte o interruptor para evitar as mortes dos cinco trabalhadores?
Abstract: Benevolence, kindness, and empathy are valued virtues among many of the world’s major religions. It is common that people in many cultures see religion as the source of these moral virtues and that one must believe in God to be moral. Despite these widespread assumptions about the associations of religion with morality, some studies raise doubts about the causal connection between them. The main goal of the present study was to test whether religious participants differ from nonreligious ones in terms of how extreme their judgments about moral violations are, how empathic they are, and how disgusting they consider moral violations with disgusting content. It is also our purpose to describe moral judgment processes in an understudied cultural context that has a relevant indigenous characteristic associated with morality. Six hundred fifty-six participants read 6 moral scenarios describing moral violations involving disgusting or nondisgusting contents. They reported their moral reactions using a moral judgment and a moral disgust scale. Measures of empathy, religiosity, religious affiliation, and sociodemographic questions were included in the study. Nonreligious and religious participants had similar levels of empathy and showed similar patterns of moral reactions to different moral violations involving both disgusting and nondisgusting contents. Across 6 moral scenarios, both groups agreed on the most morally wrong and the most disgusting moral violations in similar magnitude. These results question the commonly assumed moral deficit in nonreligious people and support the idea that they can be like religious people when it comes to empathy and judging moral violations.
---
Portuguese version of the moral scenarios used in Rabelo and Pilati (2019). DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rel0000277
In the following scenarios, “errado” (wrong) was exchanged by “nojento” (disgusting) in the moral disgust scale. We only included the version of the final question associated with the moral judgment scale for the sake of conciseness.
Dog (Cachorro)
O cachorro de Francisco foi morto por um carro em frente à sua casa. Francisco ouviu falar que na China as pessoas costumam comer carne de cachorro e ele estava curioso sobre como era o gosto dela. Então ele cortou o corpo do cachorro, cozinhou e o comeu no jantar. Quão errado é que Francisco coma o seu cachorro no jantar?
Boy (Criança)
Seu avião caiu no Himalaia. Os únicos sobreviventes são você, um homem e um menino jovem. Vocês três viajam durante dias lutando contra o vento e o frio extremo. Sua única chance de sobreviver é conseguir chegar a um pequeno vilarejo no outro lado da montanha, a vários dias de distância. O menino tem uma perna quebrada e não pode se mover muito rapidamente. As chances de ele sobreviver à jornada são praticamente zero. Sem comida, você e o outro homem provavelmente irão morrer também. O outro homem sugere que você sacrifique o menino e coma seus restos mortais pelos próximos dias. Quão errado é matar esse menino para que você e o outro homem possam sobreviver à sua jornada em segurança?
Cat (Gato)
Mateus está brincando com o seu novo gatinho tarde da noite. Ele está vestindo apenas o seu bermudão e o gatinho anda às vezes sobre os seus genitais. Eventualmente, isso excitou Mateus, e ele começa a esfregar os seus órgãos genitais nus ao longo do corpo do gatinho. O gatinho ronrona e parece gostar do contato. Quão errado é que Mateus se esfregue contra o seu gatinho?
Wallet (Carteira)
Você está andando na rua quando se depara com uma carteira caída no chão. Você abre a carteira e descobre que ela contém várias centenas de reais em notas bem como a carteira de motorista do dono. Pelos cartões de crédito e outros itens na carteira, é bem claro que o dono da carteira é rico. Você, por outro lado, tem passado por tempos difíceis recentemente e poderia realmente fazer uso de algum dinheiro extra para si mesmo. Quão errado é para você manter o dinheiro que encontrou na carteira para ter mais dinheiro para si mesmo?
CV (Currículo)
Você tem um amigo que tem tentado encontrar um trabalho ultimamente sem muito sucesso. Ele imaginou que seria mais provável que ele fosse contratado se ele tivesse um currículo mais impressionante. Ele decidiu colocar algumas informações falsas no seu currículo para torná-lo mais impressionante. Ao fazer isso, ele finalmente conseguiu ser contratado, superando vários candidatos que eram realmente mais qualificados do que ele. Quão errado foi o seu amigo colocar informações falsas em seu currículo para ajudá-lo a encontrar emprego?
Trolley (Trem)
Você está no volante de um trem correndo rápido se aproximando de uma bifurcação nos trilhos. Nos trilhos se estendendo à esquerda, está um grupo de cinco trabalhadores ferroviários. Nos trilhos se estendendo à direita, está um único trabalhador ferroviário. O único jeito de evitar as mortes desses trabalhadores é apertar um interruptor no seu painel de instrumentos que irá fazer o trem seguir à direita, causando a morte do trabalhador ferroviário que está sozinho. Quão errado é que você aperte o interruptor para evitar as mortes dos cinco trabalhadores?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
