The purpose of the study was to determine whether a “double standard” exists for casual sexual behavior (hooking-up) and condom use (e.g. are men and women participating in the same behaviors evaluated differently relative to selected character traits?). If women who initiate condom use are evaluated less favorably, then this may prove to be a substantial barrier to their use of condoms, placing them at increased risk of contracting sexually transmitted disease. Six forms of a questionnaire were randomly distributed to students enrolled in college health classes. Students voluntarily completed questionnaires in their regular classroom setting. Each form of the questionnaire included a scenario which described a 21 year old college student. The basic (no sex) scenario said nothing about sexual behavior. In three forms of the questionnaire the student was John. In the other three the student was Susan. In two forms of the questionnaire the scenario added a sentence stating “Last weekend Susan (John) met a guy (girl) at a party and before the night was over they had sex.” The final two forms of the questionnaire added an additional sentence “Susan (John) provided the condom.” Students were asked to indicate their degree of agreement with each of 12 statements which described the person in their scenario. Data were collected from 500 single, heterosexual, college students, under age 25. Females comprised 58.7% of the sample, whites 83.5%. Data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis and two-way (model – Susan or John) x scenario (no sex, hooking-up, condom) analysis of variance. Factor analysis confirmed the existence of three factors: likeability, positive character traits, and negative character behaviors. All items loaded at .64 or above. Results of the analysis of variance showed no significant differences for scores on the likeability factor. For both the positive character traits factor and the negative character behavior factor there was a significant model x scenario interaction. For both factors there was no difference between John and Susan's scores for the condom scenario, but for Susan this score represented a much less favorable evaluation than the no sex scenario. Results support the notion of a double standard, in that (1) In the no sex scenario Susan was more positively regarded than John, and (2) Susan's evaluation in the other two scenarios was much more negatively impacted than was the John's. Results should be considered by sexuality educators in designing interventions to promote consistent use of condoms.