Good personal thought. I'm having a bit of trouble with the measure myself. The underlying construct of "sexism" appears to be somewhat confounded with other concepts, such as feminism, romance, traditional values, etc. Within this scale, it seems that a person cannot be romantic, traditional, or questioning of feminism, without also being labeled as hostile or benevolently "sexist". In psychometrics, this would be characterized as a possible validity issue - because more than one "thing" is potentially being measured and mixed together.

In addition, the concept of "sexism" has a long history of gaining very negative connotations. Essentially, my understanding was that the term started out meaning those who make a distinction between the sexes (e.g. men and women are different). Later that turned into devaluation of one group or the other, based on those distinctions - which was indeed wrong. The problem now is that anyone who holds that men and women are different in any way, even though they might believe those differences are not devaluing, seem to fall under the definition of sexism and the negative connotations associated with it. Essentially, we have:

Belief that men/women are different = sexism = bad

That doesn't leave much room for positive differences (which would be labeled as benevolent sexism). It also doesn't leave much room for the notion of complementarity between the sexes, evolutionary psychology different adaptations, etc. Also, while you can certainly have a working partnership between completely indistinguishable partners, I don't see how passion, attraction, and sex are possible at all without at least a "touch" of "sexist" beliefs as defined by the construct. So, without the value judgment, the study results may simply be saying that men and women who use any type of "seduction" technique believe that men and women are different and respond sexually to different things...not terribly shocking.

Overall, this validity issue needs to be sorted on both a research and social level. In the meantime, that is again why I take my neutral stance and just report the empirical facts. I will save the negative value judgments for the other bloggers slamming this stuff for no good reason. Here, at least, each of you get to make up your own minds about what you like and what works for you...