Intolerance of ambiguity, gender stereotypes, and attitudes to sexuality

The premise of this thesis is that Western thought is characterised by the need to enforce binary classification in order to structure the world. Classifications of sexuality and gender both embody this tendency, which has been largely influenced by Judeo-Christian tradition. Thus, it is argued that attitudes to sexuality, particularly homosexuality are, in part, a function of the way in which we seek to impose structure on the world. From this view, it is (partly) the ambiguity, inherent in gender and sexual variation, which evokes negative responses. The thesis presents a series of inter-linked studies examining attitudes to various aspects of human sexuality, including the human body, non-procreative sex acts (anal an oral sex) and patterns of sexuality that depart from the hetero-homo dichotomy. The findings support the view that attitudes to sexuality are significantly informed by gender-role stereotypes, with negative attitudes linked to intolerance of ambiguity. Male participants show large differences in their evaluations of male and female bodies, and of male and female sexual actors, than do female participants. Male participants also show a greater negativity to gay male sexual activity than do female participants, but males perceive lesbian sexuality similarly to heterosexuality. Male bodies are rated as being less 'permeable' than female bodies and male actors are more frequently identified as being the instigators of sexual acts. Crucial to the concept of heterosexism is the assumption that 'femininity' is considered inherently inferior to 'masculinity'. Hence, the findings provide an empirical basis for making connections between heterosexism and sexism, and therefore between the psychology of women, and gay and lesbian psychology.

Empowering, degrading or a 'mutually exploitative' exchange For women?: Characterising the power relations of the strip club

This paper seeks to characterise the gendered and sexualised power relations of both female and male strip clubs, and to signal what this means for establishing positive definitions of female desire. It is argued that while it is not useful to present female strippers, or female patrons of male strip clubs as purely passive victims of male heterosexism within these venues, it is equally damaging to assume that these venues represent a whole-scale challenge to conventional oppressive gender and sexual relations for women. Some research has even suggested that both strippers and their patrons are engaged in a 'mutually exploitative' power relationship. Moreover, further empirical research documents key points where female dancers have perhaps wielded 'more' power over patrons at certain moments, and female dancers have highlighted feelings of empowerment and highlighted potential for gender and sexual relations which position women as passive to be subverted within stripping. However, such feelings are often temporally specific and are not applicable to all women in the strip industry. It may be particularly hard for these to manifest in women concentrated in the least economically-rewarding areas of the industry who have less 'power' to resist compromising their bodily boundaries. Furthermore, it is argued that women watching male strippers does little to reverse the 'male gaze', and nor does this male occupation carry as much negative social stigma with it as female stripping suffers. It is thus argued that the overwhelming picture, stemming largely from accounts of former dancers and from empirical studies of individual clubs, suggests these venues in fact do very little to challenge normative hetero-oppressive sexual scripts.