Canadian university students' perceptions of the practices that constitute "normal" sexuality for men and women

Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, The, Winter, 2008 by Todd G. Morrison, Travis A. Ryan, Lisa Fox, Daragh T. McDermott, Melanie A. Morrison

Abstract: This study investigated perceptions of "sexual normalcy" in a sample of male and female undergraduate students (N = 104) using modified versions of the Normal Sexual Behaviours Inventory (Kite, 1990). Participants were randomly assigned to the version in which a female actor engaged in various behaviours or to the version in which a male actor engaged in the same or comparable behaviours. Participants also completed measures that assessed their erotophilia/erotophobia, sexual experience, and religiosity. Ratings of normality differed according to sex of the actor in that participants considered it more abnormal for a male to be disinterested in sexuality, to engage in homosexual fantasy, and to practice sexual activities characterized by submission (e.g., receiving pain during sex). However, no statistically significant differences were found between male and female participants' ratings and there was no statistically significant sex of participant by sex of actor interaction. Limitations of the current study and directions for future research are discussed.

Introduction

Sexuality and sexual practices play a crucial role in defining the self as moral versus sinful and/or normal versus abnormal (Weeks, 1990). Knowledge of how people conceptualize their own sexual behaviours and attitudes and those of others is thus pertinent to a better understanding of human functioning. To this end, Rubin (1993), a feminist anthropologist, developed a categorization of various sexual practices as "good/normal" or "bad/abnormal" based on Western cultural standards. In the sexual hierarchy she constructed, certain practices defied categorization due to divided opinions. Some of these hard to categorize practices included activities such as masturbation and being in stable long-term gay or lesbian relationships. The latter was ambiguous because it combined homosexuality (which was "bad") with monogamy (which was "good"). At the top of Rubin's conceptualized hierarchy were married heterosexuals and at the bottom were fetishists and transsexuals, among others.

Rubin also discussed the socially constructed nature of human sexuality (i.e., the idea that religious, political, and medical institutions have embedded sexual scripts and norms into their public pedagogy). She asserted that these sexual scripts essentially shape human attitudes toward sexuality and the meanings that people attach to sexual practices. Rubin also referred to particular ideologies such as sexual essentialism and sex negativity that mould human sexuality and how it is perceived. When applied to sexuality, essentialism has been defined as the belief that "sexual phenomena such as sexual orientation or gender reside within the individual in the form of hormones, personality traits, and so on" (DeLamater & Hyde, 1998, p. 13). Sex negativity refers to Western culture's branding of sex as a dangerous and inherently negative force. In particular, Christian doctrine has been viewed as erotophobic (i.e., some denominations denounce all sexual activity which is not amenable to procreation and/or does not occur within the confines of heterosexual marriage). Available evidence corroborates this point, as religiosity (measured in terms of self-identity and/or religious behaviours such as regular church attendance) correlates positively with more conservative attitudes toward sexuality (e.g., Duyan & Duyan, 2005) and eschewal of certain sexual practices such as premarital and homosexual sex (e.g., Cochran, Chamlin, Beeghley, & Fenwick, 2004; de Visser, Smith, Richters, & Rissel, 2007).

Rubin (1993) contended that "virtually all erotic behaviour is considered bad unless a specific reason to exempt it has been established" (p. 11). A fundamental argument forwarded by Rubin is that ideologies such as sexual essentialism and sex negativity serve to exalt certain behaviours (e.g., monogamy and heterosexuality) and demonize others (e.g., sadomasochism and homosexuality). Her model also cited the "fallacy of misplaced scale" as problematic. This phrase refers to the belief that sexual acts are accorded too much significance by society and that sexual diversity induces more anxiety than other aspects of human existence. Another ideology proposed by Rubin as influencing attitudes toward human sexuality is entitled the "domino theory." The analogy of a series of dominos falling suggests that sexual activities recognized as harmless may be prohibited on the grounds that they have the potential to lead to something insalubrious.

Rubin's (1993) model was sufficiently provocative that Stryker and Whittle (2006) described her article, which detailed the model and the related concepts outlined above, as "a foundational text of queer theory" (p. 471). However, in its current form, the model has limitations. It is non-empirical and thus we do not actually know whether individuals categorize, for example, the use of sex toys as abnormal or a practice such as masturbation as indeterminate (i.e., neither normal nor abnormal). In addition, the model is grounded in an American understanding of human sexuality. Available research suggests that variations in sexual attitudes are evident among different cultural groups. For example, using data from the International Social Survey programme, Widmer, Treas and Newcomb (1998) compared 24 countries (N = 33,590 respondents) in terms of their attitudes toward premarital sex, sex among teenagers less than 16 years of age, extramarital sex, and homosexual sex. Cluster analysis revealed that western nations could be grouped into 4 separate "sexual regimes." The United States, along with Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Poland, fell into the sexually conservative cluster (i.e., these countries evidenced disapproval of the four types of nonmarital sexual activity that were measured). In contrast, though a close neighbour of the United States, Canada was grouped along with Norway, the Netherlands, Spain, and the Czech Republic into a cluster entitled "homosexual permissives" (i.e., these countries displayed high levels of acceptance of homosexual sex). Similarly, Weinberg, Lottes, and Shaver (2000) presented data suggesting that, in comparison to their American counterparts, Swedish university students are more liberal in their opinions about sexuality. Results indicated that Swedish respondents were more accepting of nudity, masturbation and the desire for sex and were more likely to regard these acts and behaviours as normal phenomena. Given these sorts of differences, the usefulness of Rubin's classification system in cultural contexts outside of America is unclear.