The double standard, named and unnamed

The double standard exists in a named version, available for public debate, and an unnamed version, operating through default reactions. The named version is the one feminist scholarship has been attacking for fifty years with measurable success. The unnamed version is what remains after the named version has been mostly defeated in explicit speech, and it is more durable precisely because it does not require defense. It just acts. People applying it experience themselves as making reasonable judgments about a specific case, and they often cannot reconstruct, on request, why the same case with the sexes reversed would have gotten a different judgment. Naming this unnamed version is the live frontier.

In 1960, a sizable fraction of the American public would have explicitly defended the proposition that female pre-marital sex was worse than male. By 2020, that fraction had collapsed in mainstream surveys. Almost no one will say so on the record. Editorial pages, advice columns, school curricula, corporate HR documents, and most religious institutions outside the strictest evangelical and traditionalist enclaves have moved off the explicit defense. The explicit retreat is real and is the result of decades of feminist organizing, scholarship, and cultural production. It would be a mistake to dismiss the progress. It is also a mistake to confuse it with the dissolution of the underlying pattern.

Researchers who measure stated attitudes find the double standard nearly gone. Researchers who measure applied judgments find it alive. The gap is the diagnostic. Wade's campus work, Tanenbaum's interviews, and several quantitative studies present subjects with vignettes describing identical sexual behavior performed by a man or a woman, and find that subjects judge the female actor more harshly even when they have just denied holding the standard. This is not a finding about hypocrisy. It is a finding about the difference between explicit belief and implicit reaction, the same distinction familiar from implicit bias research in racial domains. The standard has migrated from the conscious to the automatic.

The unnamed standard lives in specific places that can be enumerated. It lives in family conversations where sons are asked if they are dating anyone and daughters are asked if they are being careful. It lives in dating-app practice, where men's higher partner counts are treated as background and women's as foreground. It lives in friend-group gossip, where the same encounter is recounted in two different vocabularies depending on whose friend is speaking. It lives in legal cross-examination, where a woman's sexual history can be raised in ways a man's typically cannot. It lives in medical intake forms, in religious counseling, in workplace whisper networks, and in the calculations both partners run silently at the start of any new relationship. Naming each of these locations is the slow labor.

Fisher and other evolutionary biologists argue that reproductive asymmetries, in particular the higher minimum biological investment required of females in mammals, produce different mating strategies and different cultural elaborations of those strategies. The honest version of this argument is descriptive, not prescriptive: it describes a historical and biological substrate, not a moral instruction. Where the argument goes wrong is when the descriptive substrate is used to justify the contemporary standard, as though biology issued the ruling rather than supplying one input among many. Contraception, female economic independence, and changing kinship structures have all altered the inputs. The cultural standard has lagged, and the lag is what we are inside of.

The marriage market for most of history treated female sexual reserve as an asset transferable to a husband and male sexual experience as a separate question. This market logic produced the double standard as a natural artifact: protecting the asset on one side, accumulating experience on the other. The market has weakened. Women in most developed countries do not need marriage for survival, and partner selection no longer functions primarily as resource transfer. But the market's grammar persists in parental advice, in peer evaluation, and in the gut reactions both sexes have when meeting new partners. The market is mostly gone. Its vocabulary is mostly here.

Public messaging is produced by the most articulate, educated, and ideologically motivated members of a culture. Intuition is produced by everyone, including the same members of the same culture acting at lower levels of attention. The gap between what people say and what they react to is normal and predictable. The standard's retreat in public messaging tells us that the most attentive layer of culture has moved. The persistence in intuition tells us that the deeper layer has not finished moving. Both observations are compatible. Both are real.

The double standard treats male sexual experience as evidence of capability and female experience as evidence of damage. The cost to women is well-documented. The cost to men is less discussed and is part of why men have so little incentive to interrogate the standard themselves. Orenstein's interviews with young men find a recurring complaint: their own emotional experiences in sexual encounters are treated by their peers, their families, and sometimes themselves as not really happening. A man who is heartbroken after a hookup is told he should be celebrating. A man who feels used by an encounter has no script for the feeling. The standard tells him his life does not contain certain emotions, and he learns to suppress reporting them, which does not make them go away.

The double standard does not apply equally across class and race. Working-class women and women of color have historically been judged more harshly for the same behavior than middle-class white women, while men of color have faced their own asymmetric judgments shaped by racist stereotypes about hypersexuality. Naomi Wolf and others discuss how the standard interacts with race and class to produce different specific outcomes for different specific women. Any reform that treats the standard as one uniform thing affecting one uniform group will fail to reach the people most affected.

Both sexes internalize the standard from childhood. Girls learn to monitor their own behavior in advance for how it will be read. Boys learn to monitor their behavior for how it will rank them. Both kinds of monitoring are exhausting and become invisible through habituation. By adolescence, neither sex is consciously running the calculation. They are simply having reactions, which feel like their own preferences, which were trained in. Undoing the training is slow and partial work, and most people do not undertake it without specific provocation, such as a daughter who asks an unanswerable question or a friend's experience that makes the standard impossible to ignore.

The contemporary hookup culture documented by Wade complicates the standard in a specific way. On the surface, hookup culture appears to remove the double standard: both sexes are participating, both are casual, both ostensibly want the same thing. Beneath the surface, the standard remains. Women report higher rates of regret, lower rates of orgasm, and more frequent emotional complications. Men report different but also significant costs. The surface symmetry obscures the structural asymmetry. A culture that treats the same act as equally available to both sexes can still distribute the costs of that act unequally between them, and intimate-justice scholars have spent the last decade documenting exactly that.

If the standard has lost its original economic function, what is it protecting now? Several candidates. The convenience of inherited language, which lets people react quickly without thinking. The maintenance of male peer hierarchies, which still use partner counts. Parental anxiety about daughters' safety, which often takes the form of restriction rather than equipping. And the protection of certain men's comfort, since the standard relieves them of having to take their own romantic and sexual conduct as seriously as their female partners are forced to take theirs. None of these are immovable, but each requires its own attention.

A humility law applied to the double standard would say: assume you hold a version of it that you cannot see, and look for evidence of it in your own reactions before legislating about other people's. The work of naming the unnamed is mostly internal and mostly slow. It is also the work that has the highest leverage, because the unnamed version is what survives after the named version has been publicly defeated. The named version can be opposed by editorial. The unnamed version can only be opposed by attention, sustained over years, in the small judgments made in ordinary life. That is unglamorous work, but it is the actual work, and the culture moves to the extent that enough people do it.

1. Tanenbaum, Leora. Slut! Growing Up Female with a Bad Reputation. New York: Harper Perennial, 2000. 2. Tanenbaum, Leora. I Am Not a Slut: Slut-Shaming in the Age of the Internet. New York: Harper Perennial, 2015. 3. Wolf, Naomi. Promiscuities: The Secret Struggle for Womanhood. New York: Random House, 1997. 4. Valenti, Jessica. The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women. Berkeley: Seal Press, 2009. 5. Wade, Lisa. American Hookup: The New Culture of Sex on Campus. New York: W. W. Norton, 2017. 6. Orenstein, Peggy. Girls & Sex: Navigating the Complicated New Landscape. New York: HarperCollins, 2016. 7. Orenstein, Peggy. Boys & Sex: Young Men on Hookups, Love, Porn, Consent, and Navigating the New Masculinity. New York: Harper, 2020. 8. Fisher, Helen. Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray. New York: W. W. Norton, 2016. 9. Regnerus, Mark D. Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. 10. Klein, Linda Kay. Pure: Inside the Evangelical Movement That Shamed a Generation of Young Women and How I Broke Free. New York: Touchstone, 2018. 11. McClelland, Sara I. "Intimate Justice: A Critical Analysis of Sexual Satisfaction." Social and Personality Psychology Compass 4, no. 9 (2010): 663–680. 12. Druckerman, Pamela. Lust in Translation: The Rules of Infidelity from Tokyo to Tennessee. New York: Penguin Press, 2007.