Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 166-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy F. Baumeister ◽  
Jean M. Twenge

Four theories about cultural suppression of female sexuality are evaluated. Data are reviewed on cross-cultural differences in power and sex ratios, reactions to the sexual revolution, direct restraining influences on adolescent and adult female sexuality, double standard patterns of sexual morality, female genital surgery, legal and religious restrictions on sex, prostitution and pornography, and sexual deception. The view that men suppress female sexuality received hardly any support and is flatly contradicted by some findings. Instead, the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other's sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage.

2004 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 339-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy F. Baumeister ◽  
Kathleen D. Vohs

A heterosexual community can be analyzed as a marketplace in which men seek to acquire sex from women by offering other resources in exchange. Societies will therefore define gender roles as if women are sellers and men buyers of sex. Societies will endow female sexuality, but not male sexuality, with value (as in virginity, fidelity, chastity). The sexual activities of different couples are loosely interrelated by a marketplace, instead of being fully separate or private, and each couple's decisions may be influenced by market conditions. Economic principles suggest that the price of sex will depend on supply and demand, competition among sellers, variations in product, collusion among sellers, and other factors. Research findings show gender asymmetries (reflecting the complementary economic roles) in prostitution, courtship, infidelity and divorce, female competition, the sexual revolution and changing norms, unequal status between partners, cultural suppression of female sexulity, abusive relationships, rape, and sexual attitudes.


2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Del Giudice

Abstract The argument against innatism at the heart of Cognitive Gadgets is provocative but premature, and is vitiated by dichotomous thinking, interpretive double standards, and evidence cherry-picking. I illustrate my criticism by addressing the heritability of imitation and mindreading, the relevance of twin studies, and the meaning of cross-cultural differences in theory of mind development. Reaching an integrative understanding of genetic inheritance, plasticity, and learning is a formidable task that demands a more nuanced evolutionary approach.


2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve M. J. Janssen ◽  
Anna Gralak ◽  
Yayoi Kawasaki ◽  
Gert Kristo ◽  
Pedro M. Rodrigues ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew S. Anderson ◽  
Michael K. Lunn ◽  
Ronald W. Wright ◽  
Alicia Limke

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document