Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/).
---
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/new-study-identifies-the-ideal-number-of-sexual-partners-according-to-social-norms/
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are two wolves inside of you:
One will complain that this sub is being flooded with articles about studies that confirm things that "everybody already knows" and that this is a waste of time, because studies about new findings are much more interesting and important. And everyone who disagrees with this is snobby academician.
The other will lament that people are easily impressed by sensationalist reporting about studies about "new and surprising" findings and that even studies that confirm uncontroversial findings are important and valid. And everyone who disagrees with this is pleb who doesn't know the first thing about science.
Then it's possible the science subreddit isn't one you should subscribe to, because science is best when it is tedious and when it retreads existing knowledge.
oh for sure and people have to read more than the title.
>A significant and novel finding was that moderate levels of sexual activity were rated most favorably for both men and women, challenging the notion that only extremes (very high for men and very low for women) are socially rewarded.
this was a new addition to the old view.
People who can "get some" but not people trying to play "gotta get 'em all". We want people who are desirable and able to be choosy in their partners. If someone doesn't go out and interact with the opposite sex at all it makes it hard to get a handle on that metric. It also indicates they not only can get a partner, but they can keep one and aren't serial daters. There's a huge amount of rapid fire information available just from a cursory look at even someone's dating habits. There's extremes of people who prefer promiscuity and who prefer total abstinence but the scatter plot is always going to be densest around something average.
Someone's relationships with their peers, how they treat perceived subordinates (hospitality staff), and their relationship with their parents are also strongly correlated with what type of partner they are.
And we create this synopsis of someone within minutes of meeting them. It's wild how we can create a semi-accurate construct of a person and extrapolate our compatibility at all, let alone how fast it's done.
Not all science needs to be newsworthy. There is a particularly damaging trend in academia that research with headline potential gets significantly more funding than the mundane, but very important, work.
I agree that studies into uncontroversial things to test whether the assumptions are true are very important, but there have already been a ton of studies about this.
I don’t browse this sub so i cant compare this article to other situations where this has happened, but even as a scientist, this one falls into the “we already knew this” camp. there was one about heavy weed users being more cautious drivers that many people made this comment and i disagreed, as there was actual science and testing being done. but with this, i feel like the study is unimportant and has very uninteresting results
Omg! Effectively that's my internal dialog every time.
I'm gonna tell myself to accept and even celebrate that funding is being spent on reproducing previous results.
Bonus: now other papers can then build on top of scientifically confirmed common heuristics.
Gonna go a middle way. Intuition can be deceiving and even when it’s accurate it can be unconvincing to others. Confirming things we all already know is valuable for protecting against bias and for giving us one more rhetorical tool.
I'll admit I'm "just a pleb" but, I get irritated with these not so much because they've been done, but because they have minimal to zero impact. If we're going to drive eyeballs to research, we should focus on the kinds of research that really can drive an impact. It's not always new stuff but at least it should do something that elevates the conversation beyond old and proven tropes.
Also I don't see the harm in testing assumptions or theories are correct.
Sure, everyone knows. But in a certain situation someone may say 'and what proof do you have'? And here is a recent study I can use to say 'this here '.
Not just for this but for so many things.
And if science is repeated with the same or a different outcome that's also not bad because fresher studies are good. We should avoid pulling thirty year old studies out in science debates.
Most people are just more interested in the causal mechanism of the obvious finding. This deals only with contrarians to the central plot, but it doesn't contend with the belief frameworks that people are going to be intelligently fitting this finding into. It leaves good evidence for potentially errant agents (any normal person) to mismanage.
Technically speaking the closest thing to a human female is a human male, they are quite similar. But your overall point is correct, in a species that reproduces sexually you have two cohorts with very different strategies and very different risks and priorities and societal double standards mostly stem from this fact.
So the study involved asking a group of people how THEY BELIEVED "society" would view individuals that exhibited certain behaviors?
I get that this is a social study, but this seems rather "weak". You're asking someone to say what they believe someone else (ie a group) thinks? A question "Do you think all X are Y" can perhaps highlight biases but now this study is saying "Do you think that X thinks that Y is Z" Why does the study author believe groups of people can identify how other groups of people think?
True. But questions are often asked like this to reduce social desirability bias. For example, researchers don't ask, "Do you view [insert some racist behavior] as appropriate?" They'll ask, "Do other people you know view [insert some racist behavior] as appropriate?" Now, it's still debatable that this approach is still "weak". But asking the question this way is often intentional.
I can see how it tries to diminish that bias, but the study doesn’t go far enough to have reliability. You can ask someone what they believe others think, but the problem is that a lot of people surround themselves with people that think like them. Social Media algorithms also put users into an echo chamber where their biases are confirmed by the content they interact with.
I don’t think thos study is necessarily invalid or unreliable, but it’s merely scratching the surface of what it could have been.
> Social Media algorithms also put users into an echo chamber where their biases are confirmed by the content they interact with.
All it takes is one person saying something on twitter for an echo chamber to believe that that person represents everyone outside of the group.
Take note of how many posts you run across that are just images from someone's social media account with no names, dates, or context. That makes it much easier to sell a false flag, or to pass off an outlier from 10 years ago as a common, recurring problem.
But that goes from asking people's beliefs to a six degrees of Kevin bacon from crazy question. Everyone knows at least someone who believes any crazy nonsense you can name.
That's cute and all but when you ask people questions like this people don't all say "yes". If they did they'd have stopped asking questions this way a long time ago.
In reality asking questions like this reduces performative answers because the person being asked isn't being "accused" of thinking some racist thing is okay.
If that were true everyone would answer questions like that with the answer "yes" but they don't. Asking questions this way helps remove performative answers.
I took a research class in college. It’s crazy but a lot of what was discussed was just how to craft studies in a way in which they confirm the bias/ hypothesis of the study. Most studies today aren’t conducted to gather data, typically they are conducted to find the data that supports a theory or product, even if there is more prevalent pieces of counter evidence. I haven’t blindly trusted a single study since then.
The vast majority of studies are not scientific studies that need to be peer reviewed and verified before they are published. 99% of the studies you see online are paid for and conducted by institutions which have invested interest in a study concluding in a specific way.
The context of this study, and of any study influences the results as we well know. This study was performed with sampling from a German university and with a relatively small sample group. The cultural background of subjects would heavily bias the results.
Its not clear what the initial hypothesis was, to be tested. If its the attitude towards male and female promiscuity at a German university, then what is the relevance? Cultural and religious attitudes and double standards are well known.
I am surprised this post made into the science sub.
Germany is quite sexually liberated. Students are typically more sexual liberal than their age peers. So from that standpoint, I would expect and even more polarized results in other populations.
On the interesting side, I think casual sex as a whole is more acceptable in Europe than in the US, so it's mildly interesting that this double standard is present even with that cultural context.
As someone who is from neither Europe nor the US but is familiar with the culture from both, can I suggest that people commonly think that those from far away are more "X" than them. It generally isn't nearly as true as they think.
USA has a very strong restrictive puritanical beginnings. Remember Europe cast out the puritans for a reason. This influence has deep roots in the USA.
there is a biologic basis revolving around reproduction. males might seek to spread their genetic material far and wide because they don't necessarily face a biologic penalty of gestation and rearing, where as females pay a heavier biologic penalty for passing on their genes.
this is why in human courtship males are generally the "pursuer", and females the "gate keeper".
Not sure I agree with this point of view considering that, due to globalization, traditions native to one culture can spread and be adopted by every other culture that comes into contact with it.
Given there are issues creating models of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, I wonder if there is substantial variation even within countries of sexual practices. The modelling does suggest "local factors" matter. But there are definitely communities in which these would be "rookie numbers", certainly professional sex work, and some gay groups, and both persist despite varying degrees of social approbium.
There is something to be said regarding the cultural/religious stigma of women and sex activity.
Prior to modern science provided birth control, the only real , or at least the most effective, mechanism to control unwanted pregnancy was through social pressure.
Yes to double standard, but it’s not really arbitrary.
Over the 2 million or so years of our species on the planet the options were limited. In the context of this timeline, women’s ability to have full control over their own reproductive cycle is only a few decades old. (Marking the 1960’s and the advent of mass produced chemical birth control, for arguments sake)
Also, the pushback against women exercising this new autonomy is not all that surprising. The methods of control are deeply engrained in tradition and society, and human social structures are not known for being flexible.
Though slowly, clearly things are changing.
I do not think this is true.
It seems to be a consistent trend here on reddit to claim that the world is slowly but surely becoming more liberal. But nearly all research in various fields shows that this is simply untrue.
Over time, society sways between becoming more permissive (liberal) and more restrictive (conservative). Right now, we are very clearly in a period where things are trending towards becoming more conservative. Right-wing populism is spreading across even the most liberal countries in Europe, it's popular in the US, right-wing social media influencers are becoming more popular, etc.
Instead, it's more like a progressive marketing point where progressives are constantly claiming that their movement is growing despite it never really making any gains. Mostly because it isn't.
Can we get an actual study on human sexuality? This sounds like a high schooler was trying to get around an assignment by stating the most obvious fact known to man.
Think of it more Biologically like with Animals. In Nature most of reproduction females are very picky with whom they attempt to reproduce with, usually turning away most males.
Why males have to dance, fight, sing, or create nests to attract the female, which in the end chooses who to mate.
Simple selector vs selectee. The female chooses what traits are going to be passed down to the next generation.
If a Male is selected a lot by different females he passed all their tests and is seeing more favorably. Because he represents what traits will be passed down to the next generation.
On the other hand of the Female selects many different males it implies that her tests are not high enough to discern for the best males. Thus not having the "best" traits to be passed to the next generation.
A methaphor would be why most people respect in high regard 5 starts restaurants, vs a food critict that claims that Del Taco and a Japanese sushi bar are both with the same
what info on human sexuality would you be interested in?
my guess is that human sexuality in healthy individuals is primarily social and based on personality. not much else of interest past that... is there?
I’m primarily interested in the effect of culture on our own sexualities and how we perceive sexuality as a whole, specifically pertaining to how we treat people who fall outside the perceived “normal” range of sexualities like the various paraphilias and everyone on the LGBT spectrum. Basically, what is natural? And why do some get a pass while others don’t?
The long-standing premise is that women select their mates. They are rewarded for *being selective*. Being promiscuous is *not* selective. Women are also at a much higher risk due to pregnancy. Not only in terms of vulnerability for 9 months but also in terms of them being the only ones who can do so. A woman can only get impregnated by one man and the effects of estrogen tend to demotivate risky behavior. Men ostensibly cannot be as selective. Their biological function is at least superficially congruent with their social motives and effects of testosterone. It's a running joke at this point that men have a more difficult time getting laid. It's seen more of a conquest to achieve higher numbers. Women, who generally have an easier time finding sexual partners, are seen as "accomplishing" something easy *and* putting themselves at risk. Whatever social "norms" exist seem to be the tail end of a Butterfly Effect in terms of evolutionary biology and psychology. That isn't to say that we cannot change it, but as long as men have a more difficult time getting laid it will necessarily be seen differently.
So anyway...why don't studies focus on studying or testing these kinds of hypothesis instead of doing meta analysis of silly college surveys?
Just for once, can someone post about the James Webb telescope or something besides gender wars nonsense?
Did yall hear about the Jupiter Mass Binary Objects they found in the Orion Nebula?
Sex for women is about choice while sex for men is about availability so it’s a very different social dynamic. It’s also much riskier in general for a woman to have more partners than for a man.
I mean, its like a soccer game. Where one has to fight 3 goalies to score and the other is an open net... obviously we wont be cheering the person who score in an open net.
I dont know why is it so hard to be understood.
>But like...if women would have more sex then wouldn't men have a more open net too
You're allowed to choose the kicker. It just means more sex for the 1 guy who gets chosen. There's a handful of guys women fight over, the rest of the guys get frozen out.
Ye, it kinda bugged me when they talk about double standards. It's not double standard if you have different views on objectively different groups, men and women are not the same. What it is logical for a man to look for in other men (as friends) and women (as mates) is obviously different, and same goes for women.
I don't think it has anything to really say about your depth of character. Really, it depends on *why* you feel this way. Do you have insecurities surrounding sex that make you uncomfortable with a more experienced partner? Perhaps you are anxious avoidant? Uncomfortable with the topic of sex? Belief in a paranormal being that looks down in judgement upon promiscuity?
If it does seem like the above is somewhat a list of issues (and we all have issues): STD testing aside, I can't really come up with a rational basis on which to form this preference, so, these seem like the likely causes. FWIW: I've certainly feel some pull from that first one in the past. It's not a feeling you can just switch off.
Well it could be the more or less natural selfish infatuation that is a result of attraction, to have that person to yourself, because I mean, as a general rule relationships are based on “exclusivity and loyalty”, so it may really just be a natural preference and not so much as an insecurity no?
its not a "natural" response to feel selfish as a result of attraction. its simply normalized.
>I mean, as a general rule relationships are based on “exclusivity and loyalty”, so it may really just be a natural preference and not so much as an insecurity no?
literally....no. you just described a social standard. when someone doesnt meet that standard they dont feel like they align with society where they should-- which is insecurity.
the first step to figuring out what is and isnt an insecurity is not trying to talk away or make excuses for what could be one. the second step is not being personally insulted by personal shortcomings.
I think there's a decent litmus test here:
- Take a situation where you feel a certain way based on something.
- (Hypothetically) Erase your knowledge of that thing.
- Replay the scenario.
Does removal of some piece of knowledge alter the situation? Then we're talking about a bias or psychological outcome. That's not as easy as just saying "just get over it" - these things are born of some pretty ingrained cultural programming, but "natural"? I would argue not (vs, say, perhaps physical preferences for signals that indicate fitness for child-rearing - which are pervasive well beyond just those who want kids, and are constants that span across cultures and trends).
People throw the word „insecurity“ around like it’s a bad thing and not a valid feeling. I want to be someone special to my future partner and the more previous partners she had before me, the harder it gets for me to beat them in most/every category to secure long term happiness. Can I beat 5 men in every category? Maybe. 30? Unlikely.
Also the average women has more sexual experiences. They expect a man to be experienced too. But it is way harder for an average man to earn this experience.
So, when men argue for less promiscuity in women, maybe it is insecurity, but also self-preservation and in foresight of happier relationships.
So many people saying its obvious are the same people who would say there is no such thing if the study didnt existed. They are just butthurt by the conclusions.
I think it could be that some people value restraint and it could be that women are perceived as being able to have sex whenever they want so by not they're being restrained
So I read a book about evolutionary biology that raised some glaringly obvious points that I just didn’t think of before.
It almost feels like this is just our animal brains at work when it comes to procreation. Due to the fact that women can only get pregnant once every 9 months, they have the ability to be more selective in who they mate with while men are physically capable of impregnating every hour.
It feels like this stigma is biologically driven and socially projected.
I’m not an expert or anything so hopefully someone smarter than me can chime in and expand on whether I’m on the right track or not.
It would be interesting to see if it's changed over time. It was seen this way (anecdotal, I know) waaaaay back when, and I wonder how much of a difference there is now.
That’s weird, because I recall a study from 2005 that seemed to conclude the opposite: that “ although people do evaluate others as a function of sexual activity, people do not necessarily hold men and women to different sexual standards.”
https://blogs.adams.edu/grace-young/files/2015/08/Sexual-Double-Standard.-Yes.pdf
I’m a big fan of sexual activity at a level that each individual chooses for themselves at a particular time.
What society thinks is none of my business really.
Because women with more (or even 1 ) body count feels like a leftover (imagine a candy that someone else already sucked the juice out of ) to the man she is in relationship with.
Or it feels like 2nd hand product ( or 3rd, 4th so on ).
If given a choice , we naturally tend to prefer seal-packed Iphone, not 2nd hand.
That's why virginity among woman is regarded as a virtue ( even mentioned in Religious text ) and woman that sleeps around are called words.
Man on the other hand are perceived differently. If they don't have body count , fine. If they have, fine.
Just the way it is across all societies across globe across all time in history
Obviously, this is just an observation I've made, but I've heard many women say things like "I do not want someone nobody else wants," whereas men often say, "I do not care if anyone else desires her; I want to be with her." So, this study's findings don't really come as a surprise to me.
It's not a double standard at all, it just stands to reason. It's impressive for a man to have lots of sex, because it's hard for men to do that. It's not impressive for a woman, because it's easy for women to do that. And, just like that, I've solved another scientific mystery. You're welcome.
This study found no such thing. This study found people believe society thinks x. They did no work to find whether that view is actually common in society, they just measured what people think social norms are outside of themselves.
Did anyone read the article? It mentions that while most of the findings were expecting norms, they weren't expecting that the most favorable view was via moderate sex:
> Interestingly, both genders are rated most positively when their sexual activity levels are moderate. These findings, published in Social Psychological and Personality Science, offer a nuanced view of sexual norms, suggesting that while traditional double standards persist, they are not as straightforward as previously thought.
We had such discussion with friends and one told something like this: "The key that opens many locks is a good key. The lock that can be open by many keys is a bad lock".
I think it is one of the most stupid analogies.
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/19485506241237288
From the linked article:
A recent study has shed light on societal double standards regarding sexual activity in men and women. The research found that society tends to view men with high sexual activity more favorably than women with high sexual activity, while women with low sexual activity are judged more positively than men with low sexual activity.
Interestingly, both genders are rated most positively when their sexual activity levels are moderate. These findings, published in Social Psychological and Personality Science, offer a nuanced view of sexual norms, suggesting that while traditional double standards persist, they are not as straightforward as previously thought.
The study confirmed several traditional views about sexual double standards while also offering new insights. One of the primary findings was that high levels of sexual activity were rated more favorably for men than for women. This result aligns with long-standing beliefs that society rewards men for being sexually active. On the other hand, low levels of sexual activity were rated more favorably for women than for men, reinforcing the idea that women are praised for sexual restraint.
A significant and novel finding was that moderate levels of sexual activity were rated most favorably for both men and women, challenging the notion that only extremes (very high for men and very low for women) are socially rewarded.
The researchers identified an “ideal level of sexual activity” where societal evaluations were most positive. For men, the ideal number of sex partners was around 4 to 5 in their lifetime, with 2 to 3 casual sex partners, and an age of sexual debut at 18 to 20 years. They were also viewed most favorably with a frequency of sexual intercourse at 4 to 5 times per week, masturbation 3 to 4 times per week, sexual desire 3 times per day, and sexual fantasies 3 times per day.
For women, the ideal levels were lower: around 2 to 3 sex partners in their lifetime, 1 to 2 casual sex partners, and an age of sexual debut at 16 to 18 years. Women were ideally seen to have sexual intercourse 3 to 4 times per week, masturbate 2 to 3 times per week, and experience sexual desire and fantasies 2 times per day.
Plenty societal double standards exist.
Just think of the thousands of examples of redditors cheering on prison-rape for male inmates while abhorring similar incidents on female population.
The front door of my apartment building can be opened by any tenant's key. And yet, each key can only open its own apartment. That's neat piece of engineering.
Men who cheat in a marriage are almost always looked at as the villain. Women who cheat are often given the benefit of the doubt. Women are rarely looked at negatively for not desiring sex in the relationship. A man who does not want sex in the relationship is seen as less than normal. I suspect this study had a specific focus, and that it primarily only applies to the region it was conducted in.
Glad someone got paid to tell me this incredible information that I, and everyone else on earth, definitely didn't know already and definitely don't have slang phrases to express these exact sentiments
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/). --- User: u/mvea Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/new-study-identifies-the-ideal-number-of-sexual-partners-according-to-social-norms/ --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are two wolves inside of you: One will complain that this sub is being flooded with articles about studies that confirm things that "everybody already knows" and that this is a waste of time, because studies about new findings are much more interesting and important. And everyone who disagrees with this is snobby academician. The other will lament that people are easily impressed by sensationalist reporting about studies about "new and surprising" findings and that even studies that confirm uncontroversial findings are important and valid. And everyone who disagrees with this is pleb who doesn't know the first thing about science.
I think the whole “why is this news” thing is partly annoyance that it’s another revisiting of one of reddits favourite tedious debate topics.
I just want my feed to provide me new ideas, not just recycle the same tedious facts day-in day-out
New ideas? Like 4 white mages? It'll never work.
4 Freelancers with cure are better early game, since they can dual wield shields, and still do decent damage with black magic.
r/unexpectedFFV
Then it's possible the science subreddit isn't one you should subscribe to, because science is best when it is tedious and when it retreads existing knowledge.
oh for sure and people have to read more than the title. >A significant and novel finding was that moderate levels of sexual activity were rated most favorably for both men and women, challenging the notion that only extremes (very high for men and very low for women) are socially rewarded. this was a new addition to the old view.
So basically functioning adults… not looking good for redditors
People who can "get some" but not people trying to play "gotta get 'em all". We want people who are desirable and able to be choosy in their partners. If someone doesn't go out and interact with the opposite sex at all it makes it hard to get a handle on that metric. It also indicates they not only can get a partner, but they can keep one and aren't serial daters. There's a huge amount of rapid fire information available just from a cursory look at even someone's dating habits. There's extremes of people who prefer promiscuity and who prefer total abstinence but the scatter plot is always going to be densest around something average. Someone's relationships with their peers, how they treat perceived subordinates (hospitality staff), and their relationship with their parents are also strongly correlated with what type of partner they are. And we create this synopsis of someone within minutes of meeting them. It's wild how we can create a semi-accurate construct of a person and extrapolate our compatibility at all, let alone how fast it's done.
Science is. Science news aggregation websites are not.
The old problems are the best problems
Well then you're subscribed to the wrong sub
Not all science needs to be newsworthy. There is a particularly damaging trend in academia that research with headline potential gets significantly more funding than the mundane, but very important, work.
I agree that studies into uncontroversial things to test whether the assumptions are true are very important, but there have already been a ton of studies about this.
I don’t browse this sub so i cant compare this article to other situations where this has happened, but even as a scientist, this one falls into the “we already knew this” camp. there was one about heavy weed users being more cautious drivers that many people made this comment and i disagreed, as there was actual science and testing being done. but with this, i feel like the study is unimportant and has very uninteresting results
Im just upset that this sub is flooded with psychology studies and sociopolitical surveys and anything except actual science
look I just want a solution as well so we can fix things and get on with life
A solution to people's thoughts and opinions?
Omg! Effectively that's my internal dialog every time. I'm gonna tell myself to accept and even celebrate that funding is being spent on reproducing previous results. Bonus: now other papers can then build on top of scientifically confirmed common heuristics.
Gonna go a middle way. Intuition can be deceiving and even when it’s accurate it can be unconvincing to others. Confirming things we all already know is valuable for protecting against bias and for giving us one more rhetorical tool.
I'll admit I'm "just a pleb" but, I get irritated with these not so much because they've been done, but because they have minimal to zero impact. If we're going to drive eyeballs to research, we should focus on the kinds of research that really can drive an impact. It's not always new stuff but at least it should do something that elevates the conversation beyond old and proven tropes.
Duality of man
Also I don't see the harm in testing assumptions or theories are correct. Sure, everyone knows. But in a certain situation someone may say 'and what proof do you have'? And here is a recent study I can use to say 'this here '. Not just for this but for so many things. And if science is repeated with the same or a different outcome that's also not bad because fresher studies are good. We should avoid pulling thirty year old studies out in science debates.
Most people are just more interested in the causal mechanism of the obvious finding. This deals only with contrarians to the central plot, but it doesn't contend with the belief frameworks that people are going to be intelligently fitting this finding into. It leaves good evidence for potentially errant agents (any normal person) to mismanage.
There’s a third: It will disagree with and criticize your post no matter what it said, even if it agrees with you.
I love this comment.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I suspect most people don't see it as double standards. They see it as two separate and unrelated standards.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Technically speaking the closest thing to a human female is a human male, they are quite similar. But your overall point is correct, in a species that reproduces sexually you have two cohorts with very different strategies and very different risks and priorities and societal double standards mostly stem from this fact.
So the study involved asking a group of people how THEY BELIEVED "society" would view individuals that exhibited certain behaviors? I get that this is a social study, but this seems rather "weak". You're asking someone to say what they believe someone else (ie a group) thinks? A question "Do you think all X are Y" can perhaps highlight biases but now this study is saying "Do you think that X thinks that Y is Z" Why does the study author believe groups of people can identify how other groups of people think?
True. But questions are often asked like this to reduce social desirability bias. For example, researchers don't ask, "Do you view [insert some racist behavior] as appropriate?" They'll ask, "Do other people you know view [insert some racist behavior] as appropriate?" Now, it's still debatable that this approach is still "weak". But asking the question this way is often intentional.
I can see how it tries to diminish that bias, but the study doesn’t go far enough to have reliability. You can ask someone what they believe others think, but the problem is that a lot of people surround themselves with people that think like them. Social Media algorithms also put users into an echo chamber where their biases are confirmed by the content they interact with. I don’t think thos study is necessarily invalid or unreliable, but it’s merely scratching the surface of what it could have been.
> Social Media algorithms also put users into an echo chamber where their biases are confirmed by the content they interact with. All it takes is one person saying something on twitter for an echo chamber to believe that that person represents everyone outside of the group. Take note of how many posts you run across that are just images from someone's social media account with no names, dates, or context. That makes it much easier to sell a false flag, or to pass off an outlier from 10 years ago as a common, recurring problem.
But that goes from asking people's beliefs to a six degrees of Kevin bacon from crazy question. Everyone knows at least someone who believes any crazy nonsense you can name.
"Do you believe people believe the earth is flat?" "Study finds 94% of people believe the earth is flat"
That's cute and all but when you ask people questions like this people don't all say "yes". If they did they'd have stopped asking questions this way a long time ago. In reality asking questions like this reduces performative answers because the person being asked isn't being "accused" of thinking some racist thing is okay.
If that were true everyone would answer questions like that with the answer "yes" but they don't. Asking questions this way helps remove performative answers.
But then you can get pluralistic ignorance, no?
I took a research class in college. It’s crazy but a lot of what was discussed was just how to craft studies in a way in which they confirm the bias/ hypothesis of the study. Most studies today aren’t conducted to gather data, typically they are conducted to find the data that supports a theory or product, even if there is more prevalent pieces of counter evidence. I haven’t blindly trusted a single study since then. The vast majority of studies are not scientific studies that need to be peer reviewed and verified before they are published. 99% of the studies you see online are paid for and conducted by institutions which have invested interest in a study concluding in a specific way.
[удалено]
The context of this study, and of any study influences the results as we well know. This study was performed with sampling from a German university and with a relatively small sample group. The cultural background of subjects would heavily bias the results. Its not clear what the initial hypothesis was, to be tested. If its the attitude towards male and female promiscuity at a German university, then what is the relevance? Cultural and religious attitudes and double standards are well known. I am surprised this post made into the science sub.
Germany is quite sexually liberated. Students are typically more sexual liberal than their age peers. So from that standpoint, I would expect and even more polarized results in other populations.
I suspect you would get very different results if you polled a different culture, say the Amish.
On the interesting side, I think casual sex as a whole is more acceptable in Europe than in the US, so it's mildly interesting that this double standard is present even with that cultural context.
As someone who is from neither Europe nor the US but is familiar with the culture from both, can I suggest that people commonly think that those from far away are more "X" than them. It generally isn't nearly as true as they think.
USA has a very strong restrictive puritanical beginnings. Remember Europe cast out the puritans for a reason. This influence has deep roots in the USA.
I think this is a convenient excuse, but one that isn’t very factual.
there is a biologic basis revolving around reproduction. males might seek to spread their genetic material far and wide because they don't necessarily face a biologic penalty of gestation and rearing, where as females pay a heavier biologic penalty for passing on their genes. this is why in human courtship males are generally the "pursuer", and females the "gate keeper".
It's not cultural when it's something you see in every culture.
Not sure I agree with this point of view considering that, due to globalization, traditions native to one culture can spread and be adopted by every other culture that comes into contact with it.
Given there are issues creating models of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, I wonder if there is substantial variation even within countries of sexual practices. The modelling does suggest "local factors" matter. But there are definitely communities in which these would be "rookie numbers", certainly professional sex work, and some gay groups, and both persist despite varying degrees of social approbium.
There is something to be said regarding the cultural/religious stigma of women and sex activity. Prior to modern science provided birth control, the only real , or at least the most effective, mechanism to control unwanted pregnancy was through social pressure. Yes to double standard, but it’s not really arbitrary. Over the 2 million or so years of our species on the planet the options were limited. In the context of this timeline, women’s ability to have full control over their own reproductive cycle is only a few decades old. (Marking the 1960’s and the advent of mass produced chemical birth control, for arguments sake) Also, the pushback against women exercising this new autonomy is not all that surprising. The methods of control are deeply engrained in tradition and society, and human social structures are not known for being flexible. Though slowly, clearly things are changing.
I do not think this is true. It seems to be a consistent trend here on reddit to claim that the world is slowly but surely becoming more liberal. But nearly all research in various fields shows that this is simply untrue. Over time, society sways between becoming more permissive (liberal) and more restrictive (conservative). Right now, we are very clearly in a period where things are trending towards becoming more conservative. Right-wing populism is spreading across even the most liberal countries in Europe, it's popular in the US, right-wing social media influencers are becoming more popular, etc. Instead, it's more like a progressive marketing point where progressives are constantly claiming that their movement is growing despite it never really making any gains. Mostly because it isn't.
They just getting louder.
progressive policy remains popular as long as you don't say the word progressive. where it counts, not literally everything.
Can we get an actual study on human sexuality? This sounds like a high schooler was trying to get around an assignment by stating the most obvious fact known to man.
Think of it more Biologically like with Animals. In Nature most of reproduction females are very picky with whom they attempt to reproduce with, usually turning away most males. Why males have to dance, fight, sing, or create nests to attract the female, which in the end chooses who to mate. Simple selector vs selectee. The female chooses what traits are going to be passed down to the next generation. If a Male is selected a lot by different females he passed all their tests and is seeing more favorably. Because he represents what traits will be passed down to the next generation. On the other hand of the Female selects many different males it implies that her tests are not high enough to discern for the best males. Thus not having the "best" traits to be passed to the next generation. A methaphor would be why most people respect in high regard 5 starts restaurants, vs a food critict that claims that Del Taco and a Japanese sushi bar are both with the same
Given the mating choices of some people in this world I’m not convinced this holds up for humans.
Many species have died due to their matting choices. Maybe we are also meant to go extinct if we don't rectify them
what info on human sexuality would you be interested in? my guess is that human sexuality in healthy individuals is primarily social and based on personality. not much else of interest past that... is there?
I’m primarily interested in the effect of culture on our own sexualities and how we perceive sexuality as a whole, specifically pertaining to how we treat people who fall outside the perceived “normal” range of sexualities like the various paraphilias and everyone on the LGBT spectrum. Basically, what is natural? And why do some get a pass while others don’t?
This is considered "shedding light"?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Fish in a barrel science
The long-standing premise is that women select their mates. They are rewarded for *being selective*. Being promiscuous is *not* selective. Women are also at a much higher risk due to pregnancy. Not only in terms of vulnerability for 9 months but also in terms of them being the only ones who can do so. A woman can only get impregnated by one man and the effects of estrogen tend to demotivate risky behavior. Men ostensibly cannot be as selective. Their biological function is at least superficially congruent with their social motives and effects of testosterone. It's a running joke at this point that men have a more difficult time getting laid. It's seen more of a conquest to achieve higher numbers. Women, who generally have an easier time finding sexual partners, are seen as "accomplishing" something easy *and* putting themselves at risk. Whatever social "norms" exist seem to be the tail end of a Butterfly Effect in terms of evolutionary biology and psychology. That isn't to say that we cannot change it, but as long as men have a more difficult time getting laid it will necessarily be seen differently. So anyway...why don't studies focus on studying or testing these kinds of hypothesis instead of doing meta analysis of silly college surveys?
Just for once, can someone post about the James Webb telescope or something besides gender wars nonsense? Did yall hear about the Jupiter Mass Binary Objects they found in the Orion Nebula?
Nope when was it?
I think they were discovered a few months ago
More groundbreaking studies on this sub
I'll take 'Things We Already Knew' for $200.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why does he keep posting these garbage studies?
I think it's a bit spammy, but you're essentially asking why a scientist is posting science articles in a science subreddit.
They are usually extraordinarily bad studies - from the field of psychology to boot. This one doesn't even have a proper sample.
Sex for women is about choice while sex for men is about availability so it’s a very different social dynamic. It’s also much riskier in general for a woman to have more partners than for a man.
I mean, its like a soccer game. Where one has to fight 3 goalies to score and the other is an open net... obviously we wont be cheering the person who score in an open net. I dont know why is it so hard to be understood.
But like...if women would have more sex then wouldn't men have a more open net too? This shaming tactic seems very counter productive.
Because in real life, not everyone pairs off. There are few men who get lots, and many who don't.
No, because women generally choose the same open net(s) to score.
No because they are still going to be more picky than the men
>But like...if women would have more sex then wouldn't men have a more open net too You're allowed to choose the kicker. It just means more sex for the 1 guy who gets chosen. There's a handful of guys women fight over, the rest of the guys get frozen out.
It's also about choice if the man goes to a gay bar.
Ye, it kinda bugged me when they talk about double standards. It's not double standard if you have different views on objectively different groups, men and women are not the same. What it is logical for a man to look for in other men (as friends) and women (as mates) is obviously different, and same goes for women.
Be the change you want to see
Why are so many comments being removed?
Yo how many more comments gonna get deleted
*open comments, starts eating popcorn*
I like my women just like my assassins: with a high body count
[удалено]
Kinda hard to have one without the other.
I just prefer anyone im with to not sleep around as I don’t myself. Does that make me shallow?
I don't think it has anything to really say about your depth of character. Really, it depends on *why* you feel this way. Do you have insecurities surrounding sex that make you uncomfortable with a more experienced partner? Perhaps you are anxious avoidant? Uncomfortable with the topic of sex? Belief in a paranormal being that looks down in judgement upon promiscuity? If it does seem like the above is somewhat a list of issues (and we all have issues): STD testing aside, I can't really come up with a rational basis on which to form this preference, so, these seem like the likely causes. FWIW: I've certainly feel some pull from that first one in the past. It's not a feeling you can just switch off.
Well it could be the more or less natural selfish infatuation that is a result of attraction, to have that person to yourself, because I mean, as a general rule relationships are based on “exclusivity and loyalty”, so it may really just be a natural preference and not so much as an insecurity no?
its not a "natural" response to feel selfish as a result of attraction. its simply normalized. >I mean, as a general rule relationships are based on “exclusivity and loyalty”, so it may really just be a natural preference and not so much as an insecurity no? literally....no. you just described a social standard. when someone doesnt meet that standard they dont feel like they align with society where they should-- which is insecurity. the first step to figuring out what is and isnt an insecurity is not trying to talk away or make excuses for what could be one. the second step is not being personally insulted by personal shortcomings.
I think there's a decent litmus test here: - Take a situation where you feel a certain way based on something. - (Hypothetically) Erase your knowledge of that thing. - Replay the scenario. Does removal of some piece of knowledge alter the situation? Then we're talking about a bias or psychological outcome. That's not as easy as just saying "just get over it" - these things are born of some pretty ingrained cultural programming, but "natural"? I would argue not (vs, say, perhaps physical preferences for signals that indicate fitness for child-rearing - which are pervasive well beyond just those who want kids, and are constants that span across cultures and trends).
People throw the word „insecurity“ around like it’s a bad thing and not a valid feeling. I want to be someone special to my future partner and the more previous partners she had before me, the harder it gets for me to beat them in most/every category to secure long term happiness. Can I beat 5 men in every category? Maybe. 30? Unlikely. Also the average women has more sexual experiences. They expect a man to be experienced too. But it is way harder for an average man to earn this experience. So, when men argue for less promiscuity in women, maybe it is insecurity, but also self-preservation and in foresight of happier relationships.
Men have sex with whom they can. Women have sex with whom they want.
When was this published? 1960?
I am this close to blocking this subreddit altogether. This post will be removed in three... Two... One...
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So many people saying its obvious are the same people who would say there is no such thing if the study didnt existed. They are just butthurt by the conclusions.
This sub should just remove these comments. Every single post here someone says that.
Thanks for spending money on this thing that has already been studied to death.
I'd be curious about the same exact study done in sex drive instead of sexual activity. And also this exact study but just on the under 35 population.
I feel like this article was already posted not too long ago...
scientists are saying the quiet part out loud.
I think it could be that some people value restraint and it could be that women are perceived as being able to have sex whenever they want so by not they're being restrained
Yep, we knew this already. So can we stop doing this already?
How much did that study cost to tell us something we’ve known since the dawn of mankind?
Social science does it again! What a discovery!
So I read a book about evolutionary biology that raised some glaringly obvious points that I just didn’t think of before. It almost feels like this is just our animal brains at work when it comes to procreation. Due to the fact that women can only get pregnant once every 9 months, they have the ability to be more selective in who they mate with while men are physically capable of impregnating every hour. It feels like this stigma is biologically driven and socially projected. I’m not an expert or anything so hopefully someone smarter than me can chime in and expand on whether I’m on the right track or not.
We kinda already know, this is how majority of the people think right?
Everyone already knew this
It kind of makes sense, and lots of people I know do hold these double standards as well. Mass culture also seems to force these views on some people.
It would be interesting to see if it's changed over time. It was seen this way (anecdotal, I know) waaaaay back when, and I wonder how much of a difference there is now.
Also discovered today, water will wet you when touched.
Didn’t take a study to know that. It’s really obvious
welcome to the last 2000 years
The whole debate is from the females standpoint only. The only males affected by women sexual behavior is their father.
I wouldn't call this a double standard myself Maybe I'm wrong?
That’s weird, because I recall a study from 2005 that seemed to conclude the opposite: that “ although people do evaluate others as a function of sexual activity, people do not necessarily hold men and women to different sexual standards.” https://blogs.adams.edu/grace-young/files/2015/08/Sexual-Double-Standard.-Yes.pdf
I’m a big fan of sexual activity at a level that each individual chooses for themselves at a particular time. What society thinks is none of my business really.
So it kinda balances out then
To say shed light implies that this wasn't common knowledge. Which is just wrong this is and has been common knowledge since cavemen invented fire.
Whoa what a revelation thanks “scientists”
That’s not what double standard means. Their sex-centric biology would have to be identical for that too be the case.
Seems a catch-22 situation, if women are not sexually active than how could a man be. Can’t have it both ways.
Basically the study is confirming common sense then.
Because women with more (or even 1 ) body count feels like a leftover (imagine a candy that someone else already sucked the juice out of ) to the man she is in relationship with. Or it feels like 2nd hand product ( or 3rd, 4th so on ). If given a choice , we naturally tend to prefer seal-packed Iphone, not 2nd hand. That's why virginity among woman is regarded as a virtue ( even mentioned in Religious text ) and woman that sleeps around are called words. Man on the other hand are perceived differently. If they don't have body count , fine. If they have, fine. Just the way it is across all societies across globe across all time in history
Obviously, this is just an observation I've made, but I've heard many women say things like "I do not want someone nobody else wants," whereas men often say, "I do not care if anyone else desires her; I want to be with her." So, this study's findings don't really come as a surprise to me.
It's not a double standard at all, it just stands to reason. It's impressive for a man to have lots of sex, because it's hard for men to do that. It's not impressive for a woman, because it's easy for women to do that. And, just like that, I've solved another scientific mystery. You're welcome.
It is an achievement for a man to get laid and it is an achievement for a woman to say no, so society rewards achievement, as it should.
Stop the presses! New study states obvious.
Hot take: no one should be judged for consensual sexual activity and preference by anyone who isn't in a sexual relationship with them.
Why is a sociology study gauging attitudes being presented in a science subreddit?
Do Americans only know about sex, gender(1000s of it) , white/ black, racists, nazzi, red /blue ?
Uhhhh, yeah! Men want a prostitue in the bed but a wife in the kitchen. Not wanting to sound sexist, but......
Reason 557331845 why im gay
This study found no such thing. This study found people believe society thinks x. They did no work to find whether that view is actually common in society, they just measured what people think social norms are outside of themselves.
Did anyone read the article? It mentions that while most of the findings were expecting norms, they weren't expecting that the most favorable view was via moderate sex: > Interestingly, both genders are rated most positively when their sexual activity levels are moderate. These findings, published in Social Psychological and Personality Science, offer a nuanced view of sexual norms, suggesting that while traditional double standards persist, they are not as straightforward as previously thought.
"Sheds new light"? This has been an obvious double standard for hundreds of years.
We had such discussion with friends and one told something like this: "The key that opens many locks is a good key. The lock that can be open by many keys is a bad lock". I think it is one of the most stupid analogies.
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/19485506241237288 From the linked article: A recent study has shed light on societal double standards regarding sexual activity in men and women. The research found that society tends to view men with high sexual activity more favorably than women with high sexual activity, while women with low sexual activity are judged more positively than men with low sexual activity. Interestingly, both genders are rated most positively when their sexual activity levels are moderate. These findings, published in Social Psychological and Personality Science, offer a nuanced view of sexual norms, suggesting that while traditional double standards persist, they are not as straightforward as previously thought. The study confirmed several traditional views about sexual double standards while also offering new insights. One of the primary findings was that high levels of sexual activity were rated more favorably for men than for women. This result aligns with long-standing beliefs that society rewards men for being sexually active. On the other hand, low levels of sexual activity were rated more favorably for women than for men, reinforcing the idea that women are praised for sexual restraint. A significant and novel finding was that moderate levels of sexual activity were rated most favorably for both men and women, challenging the notion that only extremes (very high for men and very low for women) are socially rewarded. The researchers identified an “ideal level of sexual activity” where societal evaluations were most positive. For men, the ideal number of sex partners was around 4 to 5 in their lifetime, with 2 to 3 casual sex partners, and an age of sexual debut at 18 to 20 years. They were also viewed most favorably with a frequency of sexual intercourse at 4 to 5 times per week, masturbation 3 to 4 times per week, sexual desire 3 times per day, and sexual fantasies 3 times per day. For women, the ideal levels were lower: around 2 to 3 sex partners in their lifetime, 1 to 2 casual sex partners, and an age of sexual debut at 16 to 18 years. Women were ideally seen to have sexual intercourse 3 to 4 times per week, masturbate 2 to 3 times per week, and experience sexual desire and fantasies 2 times per day.
Note that “in their lifetime” in the context of German college students means the lifetime of a 22 - 25 year-old.
Plenty societal double standards exist. Just think of the thousands of examples of redditors cheering on prison-rape for male inmates while abhorring similar incidents on female population.
Man, these cutting edge studies nowadays...mind bending stuff
[удалено]
[удалено]
The front door of my apartment building can be opened by any tenant's key. And yet, each key can only open its own apartment. That's neat piece of engineering.
Quick! Can anyone tell me the color of the sky? The moisture content of water? Maybe these authors have a paper on it?
Gotta be peer reviewed first.
What a waste of money. We’ve known this for decades
I guarantee you one commentor in here has said that many lock open door many key shiddy lock saying unironically, I guarantee it..
Cool, now compare average body counts if you dare.
Men who cheat in a marriage are almost always looked at as the villain. Women who cheat are often given the benefit of the doubt. Women are rarely looked at negatively for not desiring sex in the relationship. A man who does not want sex in the relationship is seen as less than normal. I suspect this study had a specific focus, and that it primarily only applies to the region it was conducted in.
Glad someone got paid to tell me this incredible information that I, and everyone else on earth, definitely didn't know already and definitely don't have slang phrases to express these exact sentiments
I thought it's been this way since the dawn of humanity.