Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Papa Don’t Preach?

Using Lies to Expose the Truth about Who Suppresses Female Sexuality

  • Published:
Human Nature Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The suppression of sexuality is culturally widespread, and women’s sexual promiscuity, activity, and enjoyment are almost always judged and punished more harshly than men’s. It remains disputed, however, to what end people suppress sexuality, and who benefits from the suppression of female sexuality. Different theories predict that women in general, men in general, women’s intimate partners, or parents benefit most. Here we use the lies women and men tell—or imagine telling—about their sexual histories as an indirect measure of who is most involved in the suppression of sexuality. We asked men and women what they would reply if asked questions by their mother, father, current partner, attractive confederate, and various same- or opposite-sex friends and colleagues about their number of previous sex partners, age at first romantic kiss, age at first consensual sex, and cheating on a previous partner or spouse. By comparing the size and direction of the lies that subjects told, we tested competing predictions of several cultural and evolutionary theories concerning why female sexuality is suppressed and who is driving its suppression. We found that men and women told larger and more frequent lies to their parents, with women telling the largest and most frequent lies of all to their fathers. Additionally, the majority of lies by both men and women were in sexually conservative directions. Our findings suggest that mothers, and especially fathers, restrict female sexuality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, A. M., Madhavan, S., & Simon, D. (2002). Women’s social networks and child survival in Mali. Social Science & Medicine, 54(2), 165–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 27–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, R., & Risman, B. J. (2013). A double standard for “hooking up”: How far have we come toward gender equality? Social Science Research, 42(5), 1191–1206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antfolk, J., Lieberman, D., Harju, C., Albrecht, A., Mokros, A., & Santtila, P. (2018). Opposition to inbreeding between close kin reflects inclusive fitness costs. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apostolou, M. (2007). Sexual selection under parental choice: The role of parents in the evolution of human mating. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 403–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apostolou, M. (2010). Sexual selection under parental choice in agropastoral societies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(1), 39–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apostolou, M. (2012). Sexual selection under parental choice: Evidence from sixteen historical societies. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(3), 147470491201000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apostolou, M. (2013). Do as we wish: Parental tactics of mate choice manipulation. Evolutionary Psychology, 11(4), 147470491301100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, N. (2000). On the relationship between country sex ratios and teen pregnancy rates: A replication. Cross-Cultural Research, 34(1), 26–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, N. (2003). Paternal investment prospects and cross-national differences in single parenthood. Cross-Cultural Research, 37(2), 163–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Mendoza, J. P. (2011). Cultural variations in the sexual marketplace: Gender equality correlates with more sexual activity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151(3), 350–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2002). Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 166–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 339–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 242–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, R. C., & Denison, E. (2013). A tradition in transition: Factors perpetuating and hindering the continuance of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) summarized in a systematic review. Health Care for Women International, 34(10), 837–859.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake, K. R., Fourati, M., & Brooks, R. C. (2018). Who suppresses female sexuality? An examination of support for Islamic veiling in a secular Muslim democracy as a function of sex and offspring sex. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39, 632–638.

  • Bleske-Rechek, A. L., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Opposite-sex friendship: Sex differences and similarities in initiation, selection, and dissolution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1310–1323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleske-Rechek, A., Somers, E., Micke, C., Erickson, L., Matteson, L., Stocco, C., Schumacher, B., & Ritchie, L. (2012). Benefit or burden? Attraction in cross-sex friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(5), 569–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boothroyd, L. G., & Cross, C. P. (2017). Father absence and gendered traits in sons and daughters. PLoS One, 12(7), e0179954.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2009). Serial monogamy as polygyny or polyandry? Human Nature, 20(2), 130–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnstein, E., Crandall, C., & Kitayama, S. (1994). Some neo-Darwinian decision rules for altruism: Weighing cues for inclusive fitness as a function of the biological importance of the decision. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 773–789.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Haselton, M. (2005). The evolution of jealousy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(11), 506–507, 508–510.

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buunk, A. P., & Solano, A. C. (2010). Conflicting preferences of parents and offspring over criteria for a mate: A study in Argentina. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(4), 391–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buunk, A. P., Park, J. H., & Dubbs, S. L. (2008). Parent-offspring conflict in mate preferences. Review of General Psychology, 12(1), 47–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buunk, A. P., Park, J. H., & Duncan, L. A. (2010). Cultural variation in parental influence on mate choice. Cross-Cultural Research, 44(1), 23–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buunk, A. P., Pollet, T. V., & Dubbs, S. (2012). Parental control over mate choice to prevent marriages with out-group members. Human Nature, 23(3), 360–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, L. M. (2002). Gender and the meaning and experience of virginity loss in the contemporary United States. Gender & Society, 16(3), 345–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., & Moors, A. C. (2013). Backlash from the bedroom: Stigma mediates gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(3), 392–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 13–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuthbert, D., & Quartly, M. (2012). “Forced adoption” in the Australian story of national regret and apology. Australian Journal of Politics & History, 58(1), 82–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 3(1), 11–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLamater, J. (1981). The social control of sexuality. Annual Review of Sociology, 7, 263–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiIorio, C., Kelley, M., & Hockenberry-Eaton, M. (1999). Communication about sexual issues: Mothers, fathers, and friends. Journal of Adolescent Health, 24(3), 181–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dike, C. C., Baranoski, M., & Griffith, E. E. H. (2005). Pathological lying revisited. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33(3), 342–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic perspective. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(3), 306–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, B. J., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Fergusson, D. M., John Horwood, L., Pettit, G. S., & Woodward, L. (2003). Does father absence place daughters at special risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy? Child Development, 74(3), 801–821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T. D. (2007). Sex of experimenter and social norm effects on reports of sexual behavior in young men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(1), 89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T. D. (2009). The impact of socially conveyed norms on the reporting of sexual behavior and attitudes by men and women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 567–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T. D. (2013). Gender roles and pressure to be truthful: The bogus pipeline modifies gender differences in sexual but not non-sexual behavior. Sex Roles, 68(7–8), 401–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaulin, S. J. C., & Schlegel, A. (1980). Paternal confidence and paternal investment: A cross cultural test of a sociobiological hypothesis. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1(4), 301–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heflick, N. A., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2009). Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that objectification causes women to be perceived as less competent and less fully human. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 598–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heflick, N. A., Goldenberg, J. L., Cooper, D. P., & Puvia, E. (2011). From women to objects: Appearance focus, target gender, and perceptions of warmth, morality and competence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 572–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, D. (2010). Impact of past adoption practices: Summary of key issues from Australian research. Final report. A report to the Australian government Department of Families, housing community services and indigenous affairs. Canberra: Australian Institute of Family Studies https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/pastadoptionreport.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, S. E., & DelPriore, D. J. (2012). (Not) bringing up baby: The effects of jealousy on the desire to have and invest in children. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 206–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, J. A., & Gibson, M. A. (2019). Is there a link between paternity concern and female genital cutting in West Africa? Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonason, P. K., & Fisher, T. D. (2009). The power of prestige: Why young men report having more sex partners than young women. Sex Roles, 60(3–4), 151–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallen, D. J., Stephenson, J. J., & Doughty, A. (1983). The need to know: Recalled adolescent sources of sexual and contraceptive information and sexual behavior. The Journal of Sex Research, 19(2), 137–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, P., Higgins, D., Soloff, C., & Sweid, R. (2012). Past adoption experiences: National research study on the service response to past adoption practices. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/rr21.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreager, D. A., & Staff, J. (2009). The sexual double standard and adolescent peer acceptance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72(2), 143–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefkowitz, E. S., & Espinosa-Hernandez, G. (2007). Sex-related communication with mothers and close friends during the transition to university. Journal of Sex Research, 44(1), 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefkowitz, E. S., Boone, T. L., & Shearer, C. L. (2004). Communication with best friends about sex-related topics during emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(4), 339–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, G. (1986). The creation of patriarchy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, H., Giordano, P. C., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2011). Identity, peer relationships, and adolescent girls’ sexual behavior: An exploration of the contemporary double standard. Journal of Sex Research, 48(5), 437–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, J. G. (2002). Bootstrap inference in econometrics. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne d’Economique, 35(4), 615–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, H., Garcia-Rada, X., Houser, D., & Ariely, D. (2014). Everybody else is doing it: Exploring social transmission of lying behavior. PLoS One, 9(10), e109591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52(3–4), 175–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (1999). Does the sexual double standard still exist? Perceptions of university women. Journal of Sex Research, 36(4), 361–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moradi, B., & Huang, Y.-P. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 377–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muggleton, N. K., Tarran, S. R., & Fincher, C. L. (2018). Who punishes promiscuous women? Both women and men, but only women inflict costly punishment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40, 259–268.

  • Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 29–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pazhoohi, F., Lang, M., Xygalatas, D., & Grammer, K. (2017). Religious veiling as a mate-guarding strategy: Effects of environmental pressures on cultural practices. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3(2), 118–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, W. C., Miller, L. C., Putcha-Bhagavatula, A. D., & Yang, Y. (2002). Evolved sex differences in the number of partners desired? The long and the short of it. Psychological Science, 13(2), 157–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1113–1135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peplau, L. A. (2003). Human sexuality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(2), 37–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perilloux, C., Fleischman, D. S., & Buss, D. M. (2008). The daughter-guarding hypothesis: Parental influence on, and emotional reactions to, offspring’s mating behavior. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(2), 217–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perilloux, C., Fleischman, D. S., & Buss, D. M. (2011). Meet the parents: Parent-offspring convergence and divergence in mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 253–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993-2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, M. E., Pound, N., & Scott, I. M. (2014). Female economic dependence and the morality of promiscuity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(7), 1289–1301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, I. A. (1986). A sociological journey into sexuality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48(2), 233–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roudsari, R. L., Javadnoori, M., Hasanpour, M., Hazavehei, S. M. M., & Taghipour, A. (2013). Socio-cultural challenges to sexual health education for female adolescents in Iran. Iranian Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 11(2), 101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A. (2017). Myths of sexual economics theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 036168431771470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., & Fetterolf, J. C. (2014). Gender and sexual economics: Do women view sex as a female commodity? Psychological Science, 25(7), 1438–1447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., & Fetterolf, J. C. (2015). Why sexual economics theory is patriarchal: Reply to Vohs and Baumeister’s (2015) “Comment on Rudman and Fetterolf (2014).” Psychological Science, 26(9), 1524–1525.

  • Rudman, L. A., Fetterolf, J. C., & Sanchez, D. T. (2013). What motivates the sexual double standard? More support for male versus female control theory. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 250–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruzicka, L. T. (1975). Non-marital pregnancies in Australia since 1947. Journal of Biosocial Science, 7(02), 241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakaluk, J. K., & Milhausen, R. R. (2012). Factors influencing university students’ explicit and implicit sexual double standards. Journal of Sex Research, 49(5), 464–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scelza, B. A. (2011a). Female choice and extrapair paternity in a traditional human population. Biology Letters, 7(6), 889–891.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scelza, B. A. (2011b). Female mobility and postmarital kin access in a patrilocal society. Human Nature, 22(4), 377–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scelza, B. A. (2013). Choosy but not chaste: Multiple mating in human females. Evolutionary Anthropology, 22(5), 259–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schacht, R., & Bell, A. V. (2016). The evolution of monogamy in response to partner scarcity. Scientific Reports, 6, 32472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheeran, P., Abrams, D., Abraham, C., & Spears, R. (1993). Religiosity and adolescents’ premarital sexual attitudes and behaviour: An empirical study of conceptual issues. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23(1), 39–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shenk, M. K., & Scelza, B. A. (2012). Paternal investment and status-related child outcomes: Timing of father’s death affects offspring success. Journal of Biosocial Science, 44(5), 549–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherfey, M. J. (1966). The evolution and nature of female sexuality in relation to psychoanalytic theory. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 14(1), 28–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 870–883.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smuts, B. (1995). The evolutionary origins of patriarchy. Human Nature, 6(1), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart-Williams, S., Butler, C. A., & Thomas, A. G. (2016). Sexual history and present attractiveness: People want a mate with a bit of a past, but not too much. Journal of Sex Research, 54(9), 1097–1105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, E. (2017). Do women compete for mates when men are scarce? Sex ratio imbalances and women’s mate competition cross-culturally. In M. Fisher (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of women and competition (pp. 249–264). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strassmann, B. I., Kurapati, N. T., Hug, B. F., Burke, E. E., Gillespie, B. W., Karafet, T. M., & Hammer, M. F. (2012). Religion as a means to assure paternity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(25), 9781–9785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trinh, S. L. (2016). “Enjoy your sexuality, but do it in secret”: Exploring undergraduate women’s reports of friends’ sexual communications. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(1), 96–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection & the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valenti, J. (2009). The purity myth: How America’s obsession with virginity is hurting young women. Emeryville, CA: Seal Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Brummen-Girigori, O., & Buunk, A. (2016). Intrasexual competitiveness and non-verbal seduction strategies to attract males: A study among teenage girls from Curaçao. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(2), 134–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2015). Correcting some misrepresentations about gender and sexual economics theory: Comment on Rudman and Fetterolf (2014). Psychological Science, 26(9), 1522–1523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R. S., Hill, K. R., Flinn, M. V., & Ellsworth, R. M. (2011). Evolutionary history of hunter-gatherer marriage practices. PLoS One, 6(4), e19066.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weeden, J., Cohen, A. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2008). Religious attendance as reproductive support. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(5), 327–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiederman, M. W. (1997). The truth must be in here somewhere: Examining the gender discrepancy in self-reported lifetime number of sex partners. The Journal of Sex Research, 34(4), 375–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. K., & Koo, H. P. (2010). Mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters: Gender differences in factors associated with parent-child communication about sexual topics. Reproductive Health, 7, 31.

  • Xu, F., Bao, X., Fu, G., Talwar, V., & Lee, K. (2010). Lying and truth-telling in children: From concept to action. Child Development, 81(2), 581–596.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Evolution & Ecology Research Centre, and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Science, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia

    Dax J. Kellie & Robert C. Brooks

  2. School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Barnaby J. W. Dixson

Authors
  1. Dax J. Kellie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barnaby J. W. Dixson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert C. Brooks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dax J. Kellie.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kellie, D.J., Dixson, B.J.W. & Brooks, R.C. Papa Don’t Preach?. Hum Nat 31, 222–248 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-020-09372-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-020-09372-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation