Eagly has articulated social role theory and its application to gender roles and gender differences (e. g., Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Crowley, 1986). Here we will extend these applications to gender differences in sexual behaviors and attitudes.
Sexual behaviors are governed by roles; at the same time, sexuality is an important component of gender roles. Heterosexuality is a part of both the male role and the female role (Bern, 1981). Men who are described as having feminine qualities are assessed as having a higher probability of being gay (.40) than are men described as having masculine qualities (.20; Deaux & Lewis, 1984). That is, if a man is described as a male-role violator (has feminine qualities), he is assumed to violate the heterosexual part of the male role as well. A woman described as having masculine qualities is given a lower probability (.27) of being a lesbian than is a man with feminine qualities of being gay (.40). This suggests that the sexual aspects of gender roles are more rigid for males than females, with males’ violations of these roles seen as more serious than females’ violations. Social role theory, then, predicts that male homosexuality will be viewed as a more serious violation of roles than female homosexuality, resulting in differences in attitudes toward homosexuality depending on whether the target being rated is a man or a woman.
The sexual double standard, discussed earlier (e. g., Sprecher et al., 1987), is critical in defining male and female roles in the realm of sexuality. Evidence indicates that the old double standard of several decades ago, in which sexual intercourse outside marriage was acceptable for men but not for women (Reiss, 1960), has been replaced by a new, conditional double standard, in which sex outside marriage is tolerated for both men and women, but under more restrictive circumstances—such as love or engagement—for women (Sprecher et al., 1987).
What is the impact of the new double standard on role-related behaviors and attitudes? Social role theory predicts that women should have fewer premarital sexual partners than men and that women should hold more negative attitudes about casual premarital sex. The theory predicts that currently there should be no gender differences in attitudes about premarital sex in the context of a relationship such as engagement.
A closely related theory is script theory, originally applied to sexuality by Gagnon and Simon (1973). They used the term script in two ways. One deals with the interpersonal, in which the script organizes the mutually shared conventions that allow two people to participate in a complex sexual act involving mutual interaction. The other deals with internal states and motivations in which the individual has certain scripts that produce arousal and predispose to sexual activity. Gagnon and Simon addressed the issue of gender differences in sexuality. They traced much of the origin of these differences to the period of early adolescence, just after puberty. During this period, they argued, the boy’s sexuality is focused on masturbation. He is likely to engage in a great deal of sexual activity at this time, but because it is centered on masturbation, it is typically done alone and secretly. Girls, in contrast, are far less likely to engage in masturbation during this period, which is relatively asexual for them. Instead, they focus, traditionally, on preparation for the adult female role, or at least on attracting male interest. The girl’s earliest experiences with sexuality occur somewhat later than the boy’s and are typically heterosexual, and therefore in a relational context. Indeed, many females see the existence of a committed relationship as the prerequisite for sexual expression.
Script theory emphasizes the symbolic meaning of behaviors. Following the arguments above, Gagnon and Simon concluded that the meaning of sexuality is tied far more to individual pleasure for men and to the quality of relationship for women. The implication is that men should be more interested in and approving of casual sex than women.
Mosher and Tomkins (1988) have extended script theory in their writings about the macho man and the macho personality constellation in men—which consists of callous sexual attitudes and a belief that violence is manly. Not all men, of course, become macho men, but the existence of the script in the culture means that it influences all men, some to a lesser extent and some to a greater extent. The macho man’s sense of entitlement to callous sex means that he will have a large number of different sexual partners and that he will hold approving attitudes toward casual sex.
Social role theory and script theory easily accommodate a consideration of the role of ethnicity in shaping patterns of gender differences in sexuality. Different racial and ethnic groups have different norms or scripts regarding sexual behavior, and particularly regarding gendered norms or scripts for sexual behavior (e-g., Frayser, 1985; Gregersen, 1983). Essentially, the female role or script contains different expectations for sexual behavior in different cultures, as does the male role or script. Social role theory and script theory also are quite compatible with the social constructionist perspective that is part of feminist theory.