“Good Girls”: Gender, Social Class, and Slut Discourse on Campus
Abstract
Women’s participation in slut shaming is often viewed as internalized oppression: they apply disadvantageous sexual double standards established by men. This perspective grants women little agency and neglects their simultaneous location in other social structures. In this article we synthesize insights from social psychology, gender, and culture to argue that undergraduate women use slut stigma to draw boundaries around status groups linked to social class—while also regulating sexual behavior and gender performance. High-status women employ slut discourse to assert class advantage, defining themselves as classy rather than trashy, while low-status women express class resentment—deriding rich, bitchy sluts for their exclusivity. Slut discourse enables, rather than constrains, sexual experimentation for the high-status women whose definitions prevail in the dominant social scene. This is a form of sexual privilege. In contrast, low-status women risk public shaming when they attempt to enter dominant social worlds.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Several studies identify sexual behavior as a central domain of contention and moralized boundary-making in conflict among adolescent girls.
“In analyzing conflict among adolescent girls, several studies identify sexual behavior as a central domain of contention and moralized boundary-making (e.g., Armstrong et al. 2014; Miller 2016; Mishna et al. 2020).”
From Homophobic Bullying as Gender Policing: Population-Based Evidence (2023) · cites this paper as Armstrong et al. 2014
Gender differences in romantic partnering preferences may result from, cause, or be reinforced by cultural double standards and social norms that result in women receiving negative social sanctions for engaging in casual sex while men receive social rewards.
“Sociologists and feminists argue that gender differences in romantic partnering preferences may result from, cause, or be reinforced by cultural double standards and social norms that result in women receiving negative social sanctions for engaging in casual sex while men receive social rewards (Armstrong, Hamilton, Armstrong, & Seeley, 2014; England & Bearak, 2014; Hamilton & Armstrong, 2009; K”
From The role of culture in explaining college students’ selection into hookups, dates, and long-term romantic relationships (2016) · cites this paper as Armstrong et al., 2014
Men may also be conforming to societal expectations that they be more interested in casual sex.
“Men may also be conforming to societal expectations that they be more interested in casual sex”
From The role of culture in explaining college students’ selection into hookups, dates, and long-term romantic relationships (2016) · cites this paper as Armstrong et al., 2014
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 90 · Cited by 232
- Authors
- Armstrong, E. A., Hamilton, L. T., Armstrong, E. M., & Seeley, J. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- University of California, Merced (US)
- Venue
- Social Psychology Quarterly
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-05-28
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 100-122
- ISSN
- 0190-2725 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-8999
- OpenAlex
- W2131971003
- Cited by
- 232
- References
- 90
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 48.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Psychology Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Spencer Foundation
- Harvard University
- National Academy of Education
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Feminist Theory and Gender Studies
- Keywords
- slut-shaming, women's agency, social class, sexual double standard, gender performance, sexual exploration, class resentment, public shaming, undergraduate women, social status groups
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
