It Takes Two to Tango: Links Between Traditional Beliefs About both Men’s and Women’s Gender Roles and Comfort Initiating Sex and Comfort Refusing Sex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Traditional gender roles dictate rigid rules and standards prescribing which behaviors, thoughts, and feelings are considered masculine and feminine within sexual contexts, and thus internalizing these beliefs (higher traditional gender ideology) may influence sexual attitudes. Prior theorizing has primarily focused on how women’s traditional beliefs about women’s gender roles (traditional femininity ideology) and men’s traditional beliefs about men’s gender roles (traditional masculinity ideology) influence their sexual assertiveness. Yet, men can hold traditional beliefs about women, and women can hold traditional beliefs about men, and these beliefs should have important implications for sexual assertiveness. We addressed this gap by testing how both heterosexual women’s ( n = 389) and men’s ( n = 393) traditional masculinity and femininity ideologies associate with their reported comfort initiating sex and comfort refusing sex in their relationships. When accounting for both sets of beliefs, women’s traditional beliefs about men’s and women’s roles interacted to predict comfort initiating sex, but not comfort refusing sex. Men’s traditional beliefs about men’s roles predicted less comfort refusing sex, and their traditional beliefs about women’s roles predicted less comfort initiating sex. This novel research underscores the importance of considering beliefs about both sets of traditional gender roles for understanding people’s sexual attitudes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".