Advertisement

Sexuality & Culture

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 220–235 | Cite as

Sexual Compliance: Examining the Relationships Among Sexual Want, Sexual Consent, and Sexual Assertiveness

  • Marie C. Darden
  • Anandi C. Ehman
  • Elicia C. Lair
  • Alan M. GrossEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Unwanted sexual encounters include a broad spectrum of behaviors that may include everything from regretted or coerced sex to sexual assault and rape. Sadly, experience with unwanted sex is all too common among college aged women. A number of factors have been examined in the context of sexual interactions in this population including relationship status, sexual want, sexual assertiveness, and sexual consent. However, research to date lacks analyses which consider the potentially interactive nature of the aforementioned variables in sexual decision making. To that end, the present study examined the role of relationship status, sexual want, and sexual assertiveness on self-report consent in a sexual encounter. Female undergraduate students (N = 319) self-reported on their relationship status, as well as their sexual want (desire to engage in sexual activity), sexual assertiveness, and sexual consent behaviors within the context of their most recent sexual experience. A moderated multiple regression was conducted to determine whether sexual assertiveness moderated self-reported sexual want and consent. Relationship status was included as the primary predictor in the aforementioned model. The overall model was significant, indicating an interaction model of sexual decision-making. Generally, women displayed increased sexual consent behavior as sexual want increased across levels of sexual assertiveness, regardless of relationship status. Importantly, women low in sexual assertiveness were high in sexual compliance (i.e. consenting to/engaging in sexual activity even when self-reported sexual want was low).

Keywords

Sexual assertiveness Sexual compliance Sexual want Sexual consent Unwanted sex Sexual decision-making 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animals Rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the study.

References

  1. Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubrey, J., & Smith, S. (2013). Development and validation of the endorsement of the hookup culture index. Journal of Sex Research, 50(5), 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beres, M. A., Herold, E., & Maitland, S. B. (2004). Sexual consent behaviors in same-sex selationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 475–486.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ASEB.0000037428.41757.10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernston, M., Hoffman, K., & Luff, T. (2014). College as context: Influences on interpersonal sexual scripts. Sexuality and Culture, 18, 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burkett, M., & Hamilton, K. (2012). Postfeminist sexual agency: Young women’s negotiations of sexual consent. Sexualities, 15, 815–833.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460712454076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cantor, D., Fisher, B., Chibnall, S. H., Townsend, R., Lee, H., Thomas, G., & Westat, Inc. (2015). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct.Google Scholar
  7. Fair, C. D., & Vanyur, J. (2011). Sexual coercion, verbal aggression, and condom use consistency among college students. Journal of American College Health, 59(4), 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fielder, R., Walsh, J., Carey, K., & Carey, M. (2014). Sexual hookups and adverse health outcomes: A longitudinal study of first-year college women. Journal of Sex Research, 51(2), 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisher, B. S. (2009). The effects of survey question wording on rape estimates: Evidence from a quasi-experimental design. Violence Against Women, 15, 133–147.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208329391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flack, W. F., Jr., Daubman, K. A., Caron, M. L., Asadorian, J. A., D’Aureli, N. R., Gigliotti, S. N., et al. (2007). Risk factors and consequences of unwanted sex among university students: Hooking up, alcohol, and stress response. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(2), 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garcia, J., Reiber, C., Massey, S., & Merriwether, A. (2012). Sexual hookup culture: A review. Review of General Psychology, 16(2), 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greene, D., & Navarro, R. L. (1998). Situation-specific assertiveness in the epidemiology of sexual victimization among university women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 589–604.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00179.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greene, K., & Faulkner, S. L. (2005). Gender, belief in the sexual double standard, and sexual talk in heterosexual dating relationships. Sex Roles, 53, 239–251.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-5682-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., & Harper, M. S. (2006). No strings attached: The nature of casual sex in college students. The Journal of Sex Research, 43(3), 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 924–936.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.3.924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hickman, S. E., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (1999). By the semi-mystical appearance of a condom: How young women and men communicate sexual consent in heterosexual situations. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 258–272.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909551996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Humphreys, T. (2007). Perceptions of sexual consent: The impact of relationship history and gender. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 307–315.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490701586706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2003). Sexual compliance: Gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 87–100.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Impett, E. A., Peplau, L. A., & Gable, S. L. (2005). Approach and avoidance sexual motives: Implications for personal and interpersonal well-being. Personal Relationships, 12, 465–482.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2005.00126.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jozkowski, K. N., Peterson, Z. D., Sanders, S. A., Dennis, B., & Reece, M. (2014a). Gender differences in heterosexual college students’ conceptualizations and indicators of sexual consent: Implications for contemporary sexual assault prevention education. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 904–916.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.792326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jozkowski, K. N., Sanders, S., Peterson, Z. D., Dennis, B., & Reece, M. (2014b). Consenting to sexual activity: The development and psychometric assessment of dual measures of consent. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 437–450.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0225-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Livingston, J. A., Testa, M., & VanZile-Tamsen, C. (2007). The reciprocal relationship between sexual victimization and sexual assertiveness. Violence Against Women, 13, 298–313.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206297339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morokoff, P. J., Quina, K., Harlow, L. L., Whitmire, L., Grimley, D. M., Gibson, P. R., et al. (1997). Sexual assertiveness scale (SAS) for women: Development and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 790–804.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muehlenhard, C. L., & Peterson, Z. D. (2005). Wanting and not wanting sex: The missing discourse of ambivalence. Feminism & Psychology, 15, 15–20.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353505049698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Muehlenhard, C. L., & Rodgers, C. S. (1998). Token resistance to sex: New perspectives on an old stereotype. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 443–463.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00167.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Olmstead, S., Billen, R., Conrad, K., Palsey, K., & Fincham, F. (2013). Sex, commitment, and casual sex relationships among college men: A mixed-methods analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 561–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. O’Sullivan, L. F. (2005). Sexual coercion in dating relationships: Conceptual and methodological issues. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Sullivan, L. F., & Allgeier, E. (1998). Feigning sexual desire: Consenting to unwanted sexual activity in heterosexual dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 234–243.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Sullivan, L. F., & Gaines, M. E. (1998). Decision-making in college students’ heterosexual dating relationships: Ambivalence about engaging in sexual activity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 347–363.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598153003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Palmer, R. S., McMahon, T. J., Rounsaville, B. J., & Ball, S. A. (2010). Coercive sexual experiences, protective behavioral strategies, alcohol expectancies and consumption among male and female college students. Journal of interpersonal violence, 25(9), 1563–1578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peterson, Z. D., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (2007). Conceptualizing the ‘wantedness’ of women’s consensual and nonconsensual sexual experiences: Implications for how women label their experiences with rape. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 72–88.Google Scholar
  32. Vannier, S. A., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2010). Sex without desire: Characteristics of occasions of sexual compliance in young adults’ committed relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 429–439.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490903132051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Walker, D. P., Messman-Moore, T. L., & Ward, R. (2011). Number of sexual partners and sexual assertiveness predict sexual victimization: Do more partners equal more risk? Violence and Victims, 26, 774–787.  https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.26.6.774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Whyte, J. (2006). Sexual assertiveness in low-income African American women: Unwanted sex, survival, and HIV risk. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 23, 235–244.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327655jchn2304_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Winslett, A. H., & Gross, A. M. (2008). Sexual boundaries: An examination of the importance of talking before touching. Violence Against Women, 14, 542–562.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208315527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MississippiUniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations