The investigators went out of their way to find a bias in social attitudes towards women regarding sexual behavior and found that there is no such bias and no double standards against women.

The more interesting thing about this study is how biased the investigators themselves were. They assumed that if there is any bias, it can only be against women, so their questionnaires did not include symmetrical questions that would allow them to be sensitive to any kind of bias toward any of the two sexes.

For example, they would ask male and female respondents what do they think (and what they think society thinks) about a statement like, "if a woman initiates sex she is being pushy", by rating their level of agreement, but their study never included the equivalent statement, "if a man initiates sex he is being pushy". And so on for each and every item.

As we all know, since October 2017 when Me Too erupted and was immediately hijacked by the most radical of feminists, sexual behaviors that are considered completely legitimate for women are now considered unacceptable for men - a girl approaching a guy is admirable, a guy approaching a girl is harassment. However, this study, although performed much later than October 2017, blinded itself to any of these double standards against men. The researchers in fact assumed in advance that the only possible double standard can be against women, and so their research instrument was constructed in a biased manner (that is, with double standards) with sensitivity only to a bias against women - non of the items were duplicated with the sexes switched. The study itself demonstrates by this the very thing it sought to examine - double standards in social attitudes toward one of the sexes.

The investigators thus reported that "there are no double standards" - it's great that feminists can now be given empirical evidence that refute their misconceptions, which cause them to bash men and perform "balancing actions" while there's nothing to balance, meaning the actions only create an imbalance in the other direction. However, the conclusion offered by the researchers that "there are no double standards" is, as we all know, a false conclusion, and it results from a questionnaire that was crippled in advance in a biased manner to become insensitive to half the phenomenon it was designed to be investigating - that half being the male side of the double-standards of society regarding sexual behaviors. Had it duplicated every item with the sexes switched, and examined both directions of double standards, it's rather certain that the conclusion would be that while, as the investigators found, there are no double standards against women regarding sexuality, there are indeed double standards found in society in this regard - only it's not against women, but against men.

Link to the full text: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01869/full

Edit: The journal is very low-grade, it has an impact factor of 3 (a good impact factor is 18, a mid-range journal would be about 8-9, this factor being simply "how many times papers published here are cited by others on average"). I imagine they tried sending it to better journals, were rejected, and ended up in this psychology journal. As to why they were rejected from better journals, I'll throw a wild guess here that this is not because or their biased methodology (that is, them ignoring double standards against men - by "biased methodology" I am not referring to their methods to assess double standards against women, which are valid and appropriate methods and indeed show that there are no double standards against women in sexual behavior), but possibly because they refute a feminist myth. This is a very extensive study, very thorough, probably someone's entire PhD or postdoc, performed not in gender studies or sociology but at a department titled Mind, Brain, and Behavior Research Center, and usually such work will be accepted at least in the mid-range journals, PNAS and the like. It wasn't and the reason might be that no editor would risk taking the fire for publishing a rebuttal of a feminist myth - for examples of the kind of threats thrown at editors of scientific journals who dare to publish a paper that refutes with valid methods a feminist misconception, see here. Note that their methods to assess double standards against women are valid - the problem is in never examining the same double standards against men, and this was because they were using sex-specific items without testing the complementary items regarding men - which is itself bias. And I'm guessing that the reason they ended up in a low-grade publication, is bias too - bias in the better journals - their reluctance because of fear, to publish valid data that refutes a feminist myth.