The sexual double standard means judging the same sexual behavior differently depending on the person’s gender. Evidence shows that a double judgment exists, yet its direction is not uniform and does not fall only on women. A study of 690 US adults found male initiators judged more favorably than female initiators, while a study of 678 participants found sexually open women and men rated more negatively than their romantic counterparts. The judgments appear in written scenarios and vary with the gender of the person judged and the gender of the judge.
What did the sexual double standard look like in a study of 690 US adults?
In that study judgments were neutral on average, yet they moved with gender. Male initiators were rated more favorably than female initiators, and this gap was widest among male participants. Committed partnerships were judged as more moral than casual ones, and the context shaped judgments of sexual history for women only.
Judgment often hides behind closeness. — Image: AI-generated / Gemini 3.1 Flash via OpenRouter
In Thompson and Byers (2020, Archives of Sexual Behavior), 690 US adults, 405 women and 285 men, each read one of 12 written hypothetical scenarios in which a person initiated either dyadic sexual activity or a mixed-gender threesome with a casual or a committed partner. On average, judgments were neutral. Initiators of dyadic sex were judged more favorably and as having a less extensive sexual history than initiators of a threesome, and male initiators were judged more favorably than female initiators. Initiators in a committed context were judged as more moral and as better partners. Only for female initiators did the committed context also lead to being judged as having a less extensive sexual history; for male initiators this did not occur. The authors read the results as evidence of the sexual double standard together with a bias favoring monogamy.
These results come with clear boundaries. Participants read a short hypothetical scenario rather than reporting on a real encounter, the group was drawn from the United States, and the measured outcome was an attitude about a stranger rather than behavior between partners.
Is this judgment directed only at women?
No. The direction of the double judgment is not fixed. A small student study found limited evidence for a reverse pattern, in which women rated a promiscuous man more negatively than men rated a promiscuous woman.
In Levesque and colleagues (2007, Psychological Reports), 49 university students, 25 women and 24 men, took part. Each viewed a photograph of an attractive or a less attractive person and read fictitious information about that person’s multiple sexual partners. The authors expected men to rate a promiscuous woman less favorably than women rated a promiscuous man. The findings showed effects of physical attractiveness and only limited evidence for a reverse double standard: women rated a promiscuous man more negatively than men rated a promiscuous woman.
This study carries limited weight. The sample of 49 students is very small, and the report is an older single study, and the authors themselves describe the evidence for a reverse pattern as limited. The 49 university students are a reason to test the direction of judgment rather than assume it, not a basis for generalizing beyond that sample.
What role do disgust sensitivity and age play in these judgments?
Age is not the boundary that matters most. Sexually open women and men in both age groups were rated more negatively and as riskier than their romantic counterparts, so the pattern reflects sexual stigma rather than stigma attached to older age.
Petruzzello, O’Sullivan and Renstrom (2025, Journal of Sex Research) reported 2 studies with 678 participants in total. Each participant read one of 4 introduction flyers describing a 25-year-old or 65-year-old woman in Study 1, or a 25-year-old or 65-year-old man in Study 2, with information about that person’s sexual or romantic life. Sexually open women and men of both age groups were rated more negatively and as riskier than their romantic counterparts. In Study 1, the participant’s disgust sensitivity was related to interpersonal evaluations and to risk perceptions of sexually open women. In Study 2, it was related to interpersonal evaluations of sexually open men but not to how risky they were rated.
The authors conclude that the pattern shows sexual stigma rather than sexual ageism, and they describe their own results as nuanced. The 678 participants therefore provide evidence about stated evaluations of described men and women and about disgust sensitivity, not about behavior between partners.
How can couples recognize this bias in their own relationship?
Start with attention to your own reaction. Notice what happens internally when a partner describes a sexual past or expresses a desire, then compare the standard you apply to women with the standard you apply to men for the same act, and name the difference aloud as an observation rather than an accusation.
In my consulting room I have repeatedly seen couples judge the same sexual behavior by a different standard when it comes from their partner than when it is their own; the first step of improvement is simply seeing that difference in standards.
Our editorial position is that these studies measure small, mostly North American samples; what they establish is that a double judgment exists, not that it has one fixed direction. [More research needed: whether Iranian and Iranian-diaspora samples show the same pattern of disgust sensitivity and sexual judgment is not examined in this article’s sources.]
It means the same sexual behavior receives different judgments depending on the gender of the person who performs it. Thompson and Byers, 2020, found male initiators judged more favorably than female initiators, while committed context lowered sexual-history judgments only for female initiators.
Are only women judged more harshly?
No. Judgment depends on the gender of the person judged and the gender of the judge. Levesque and colleagues, 2007, found limited evidence of a reverse pattern, with women rating a promiscuous man more negatively than men rated a promiscuous woman.
Is this stigma limited to older adults?
No. Petruzzello, O’Sullivan and Renstrom, 2025, studied 678 participants and found that sexually open women and men of both age groups were rated more negatively and as riskier than their romantic counterparts, so the stigma was not limited to older adults.
Do these findings hold for every culture?
The studies did not test other cultures and must not be generalized. Thompson and Byers, 2020, sampled US adults, and the other studies used small samples or written scenarios. Cross-cultural replication, including Iranian and Iranian-diaspora samples, is not examined in this article’s sources.
Conclusion
The evidence is not a verdict on anyone’s past. Across 690 adults in written scenarios, 678 participants in a stigma study and 49 students in an older experiment, the gender of the person judged and the gender of the judge shaped evaluations, and disgust sensitivity shaped some risk perceptions. Recognizing that judgments vary with these variables leaves room for couples to replace a double standard with one honest, shared standard.
Looking for professional support with your relationship or mental health?
Thompson AE, Byers ES. An Experimental Investigation of Variations in Judgments of Hypothetical Males and Females Initiating Mixed-Gender Threesomes: An Application of Sexual Script Theory. Arch Sex Behav. 2020;50(3):1129-1142. PMID: 32445132. DOI: 10.1007/s10508-020-01729-4
Levesque M, Vichesky D, Simmons M, Wicke K, Lipe A. Physical attractiveness and sex in judgments about perceived sexually promiscuous others. Psychol Rep. 2007;100(3 Pt 2):1107-12. PMID: 17886495. DOI: 10.2466/pr0.100.4.1107-1112
Petruzzello G, O’Sullivan LF, Renstrom RA. Sexual Ageism or Sexual Stigma? Sexual Double Standards and Disgust Sensitivity in Judgments of Sexual and Romantic Behavior. J Sex Res. 2025:1-14. PMID: 41020756. DOI: 10.1080/00224499.2025.2565806
Image Credits
Hero: AI-generated / Gemini 3.1 Flash via OpenRouter. Figure 1: AI-generated / Gemini 3.1 Flash via OpenRouter. Figure 2: AI-generated / Gemini 3.1 Flash via OpenRouter.
