What’s the difference between Mark approaching Lisa for a hookup and Lisa approaching Mark for a hookup?

Mark is a human male; Lisa is a slut. Only now, being a “slut” has scientifically defined qualities: “Lisa [is perceived] to be less intelligent, less mentally healthy, more promiscuous, less competent, and more risky than Mark—even though Mark and Lisa both accepted the sexual offer.”

These characteristics are derived from new “research” on the way heterosexual individuals are perceived based on their sexual permissiveness. The Psychology of Women Quarterly, a peer-reviewed journal, released a study on Nov. 29 titled “Backlash From the Bedroom: Stigma Mediates Gender Differences in Acceptance of Casual Sex Offers.”

A team of researchers led by Terri Conley, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, surveyed some 3,000 participants ages 18-74 to determine the relationship between causal sex and social stigma for men and women.

This sexual double standard has been studied for decades. Research has backed theories that women accept casual sex less than men because they have fewer ova then men have sperm, meaning women must be more selective in choosing mates for evolutionary purposes.

The idea of stepping outside the box of gender stereotypes has also been documented by researchers. Citing the workplace as an example, when managers act as competitive, assertive leaders, men are perceived as likable and hirable, while women are perceived as less hirable and “manly.” There is no way for women to win in this scenario, where a damned if you do, damned if you don’t perspective holds women back from promotion and advocating on their own behalf.

How does this translate to casual sex? One study was conducted in a large university setting, where the average age of a participant was 22. Participants read one of two scenarios:

“Mark is a student at [your university]. One day, a woman approached him on campus and said ‘‘I have been noticing you around campus and I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?’’ Mark was quite surprised, but he quickly replied, ‘Sure, where and what time?’’”

The second scenario read the same, but Lisa replaced Mark as the acceptor of casual sex.

Participants rated on a scale how intelligent, promiscuous, mentally healthy, and physically attractive Mark or Lisa was for choosing to hook up. The idea of a double standard was confirmed by results.

Another study turned the tables on participants, asking, ‘‘assuming you were free that night, how likely would you be to accept the sexual offer?’’ Unsurprisingly, men were more likely to accept the offer than women.

When the researchers assigned a response to the offer of casual sex to participants, the results were particularly demeaning. Participants were asked to imagine one of two outcomes: they accepted the offer of casual sex, or they refused the offer. The results showed that women are often their own harshest critics: “Women believed that they would be perceived more negatively overall and as less intelligent than men did if they accepted the sexual offer,” the study states. “Also, women who imagined agreeing to the sexual offer thought that they would be perceived as significantly more promiscuous, socially inappropriate, and sexually desperate (relative to men) if they agreed to the sexual offer. Conversely, women (relative to men) believed that they would be perceived as more intelligent, mentally healthy, physically attractive, socially appropriate, sexually well adjusted, and more positively overall if they refused the sexual offer.”

What was men’s main concern about accepting or refusing an offer of casual sex, according to the study? To refuse would to be perceived as “gay.” Women who participated in casual sex were socially ostracized; men who didn’t participate in casual sex were seen as effeminate.

In other words, to be a slut is inappropriate for women, and to be a woman is inappropriate for everyone.

These are only two of the proven double standards the researchers identified through studies. The concept of slut-shaming women for having casual sex in a society where promiscuous sexual behavior is only acceptable for men is not a theory – it’s a state of mind that has led to a culture of unsafe sexuality.

That’s right. By understanding that women, like men, are sexual beings with sexual needs who should not be reproached for taking control of their sexuality, society will benefit as a whole.

“A lack of sexual autonomy may not only predict women’s decreased sexual pleasure, but may also interfere with sexual safety; sexual autonomy is linked to the ability to negotiate desired sexual behavior, contraceptive use, and safer sex behaviors,” the researchers concluded. “Thus, increasing women’s sexual agency could potentially reduce sexual assault, sexually transmitted infections, and unwanted pregnancies.”

Wanting to have casual sex that is consensual, safe from unwanted pregnancy and disease transference, and is pleasurable, does not make women stupid. What is “risky” about practicing safe sex? What is “mentally unhealthy” about making sure both partners agree to sexual activity and receive mutual pleasure? What makes men not “promiscuous” for seeking out sex with women (or men, as the study’s goals were independent of sexual orientation)? Why will the same hand that gives a man a high five for “scoring” slap a woman for being a “slut”?

By eradicating the stigma faced by women who have casual sex, society can move forward to address aspects of sexuality that are actually harmful – things like rape culture and access to affordable birth control. As long as sex itself is shameful, we might as well hide the key to our chastity belts with the axe to crack the glass ceiling.

Written by Lauren Slavin