Coordinated condemnation in women's intrasexual competition

Here, we identify a novel reason why women are often criticized and condemned for (allegedly) sexually permissive behavior, such as their choice of dress. Combining principles from coordinated condemnation and sexual economics theory, we developed a model of competition that accounts for women’s competition in the absence of mating-relevant advantages. We hypothesized and found that women collectively condemn other women who appear to be sexually permissive. Study 1 (N = 712) demonstrated that women perceive a rival more negatively when she is showing cleavage, and these negative perceptions are ultimately driven by the inference that “provocatively” dressed women are more likely to have one-night stands. Study 2 (N = 341) demonstrated that women criticize and condemn provocatively dressed women, even when they are not direct sexual rival (e.g., her boyfriend’s sister). Our findings suggest that more research is needed to fully understand women’s intrasexual competition in the absence of mating-relevant cues.

The “Casting Couch” Scenario: Impact of Perceived Employment Benefit, Reporting Delay, Complainant Gender, and Participant Gender on Juror Decision-Making in Rape Cases

Recent legal and media reports of contemporary and historical rape and sexual assault cases have focused on the entertainment industry, particularly around the notion of the “casting couch.” This scenario, in which a powerful figure obtains sometimes nonconsensual sexual acts from subordinate actors in exchange for employment, was used to explore the influence of rape myths and Sexual Economics Theory on mock-juror decision-making. Participant-jurors ( n = 907) viewed video and written testimony of a complainant, accusing a male producer of rape. Complainant gender (male, female), delay before reporting the incident to the police (immediately, 6 months, 10 years), and complainant casting in the production were randomly varied (acting role secured, not secured). The strongest effects were that females (79.7%) were significantly more likely than males (62.7%) to deliver a guilty verdict and to recommend longer prison sentences for the offence. When the complainant did not secure the acting role, and they delayed reporting the incident for six months, there was an interaction between complainant gender and verdict. No interacting complainant gender effects on trial outcomes were found in the other delay conditions, or when the actor secured employment. Defendant guilt attributions to the male and female complainant were also differently influenced by rape myth belief levels and homophobic attitudes, but not beliefs in a just world. The casting couch euphemism, reported worldwide, suggests industry acceptance, and may sanitize the act of demanding sex and even committing rape. However, these results have important implications for any occupational setting in which men in positions of power may sexually exploit junior staff.

The ‘casting couch’ scenario: Impact of perceived employment benefit, reporting delay, complainant gender, and participant gender on juror decision-making in rape cases

Recent media reports of contemporary and historical rape and sexual assault cases have focused on the entertainment industry, particularly around the notion of the ‘casting couch’. This scenario, in which a powerful figure obtains sometimes non-consensual sexual acts from subordinate actors in exchange for employment, was used to explore the influence of rape myths and Sexual Economics Theory on mock-juror decision-making. Participant-jurors (n = 907) viewed video and written testimony of a complainant, accusing a male producer of rape. Complainant gender (male, female), delay before reporting the incident to the police (immediately, six months, ten years), and complainant casting in the production were randomly varied (acting role secured, not secured). The strongest effects were that females (79.7%) were significantly more likely than males (62.7%) to deliver a guilty verdict and to recommend longer prison sentences for the offence. When the complainant did not secure the acting role, and they delayed reporting the incident for six months, there was a trend for guilty verdict rates to be slightly higher when the complainant was male (80.5%) than female (64.5%). No interacting complainant gender effects on trial outcomes were found in the other delay conditions, or when the actor secured employment. Defendant guilt attributions to the male and female complainant were also differently influenced by rape myth belief levels and homophobic attitudes, but not beliefs in a just world. The casting couch euphemism, reported worldwide, suggests industry acceptance, and may sanitise the act of demanding sex and even committing rape. However, these results have important implications for any occupational setting in which men in positions of power may sexually exploit junior staff.

Myths of Sexual Economics Theory

The authors of sexual economics theory (Baumeister & Twenge, 2002; Baumeister & Vohs, 2004) argue that sex is a female commodity that women exchange for men’s resources; therefore, women (not men) are responsible for the cultural suppression of sexuality, ostensibly to preserve the value of sex. In this article, I describe the central tenets of sexual economics theory and summarize a growing body of research contradicting them. I also explain the negative implications of the claims of sexual economics theory for gender equality and heterosexual relationships. Researchers, clinicians, and educators engaged in understanding human sexuality may use the arguments provided in this article to counteract gender myths. This article also serves as a case study of how feminist scholars can employ empirical evidence to weaken a popularized, patriarchal theory.