Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 47–50 | Cite as

The Importance of Studying Consent and Consent Violations in Collective Sex Environments

  • Justin J. LehmillerEmail author

Frank (2018) has provided a thorough and thought-provoking review of the recent literature on collective sex environments as it pertains to sexual health risks. Frank’s analysis is commendable and challenges the common stereotype that collective sex environments are inherently risky, while also highlighting how specific environmental features have the potential to increase or decrease risk. In addition, this review calls attention to the numerous challenges faced by those who seek to implement safer-sex interventions in these environments, from individual factors (e.g., conscious risk-taking) to features of the setting (e.g., gatekeeping), with the goal of encouraging researchers to consider novel approaches.

This important and comprehensive review is worthwhile for many reasons, not the least of which is that it establishes an ambitious agenda for future research on collective sex. That said, there were a few areas in Frank’s (2018) review that were touched on a bit too briefly that...


  1. Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., et al. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 517–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Frank, K. (2018). Rethinking risk, culture, and intervention in collective sex environments. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Scholar
  4. Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grov, C., Cruz, J., & Parsons, J. T. (2014). Men who have sex with men’s attitudes toward using color-coded wristbands to facilitate sexual communication at sex parties. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 11(1), 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Herbenick, D., Bowling, J., Fu, T. C. J., Dodge, B., Guerra-Reyes, L., & Sanders, S. (2017). Sexual diversity in the United States: Results from a nationally representative probability sample of adult women and men. PLoS ONE, 12(7), e0181198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Croft.Google Scholar
  8. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pitagora, D. (2013). Consent vs. coercion: BDSM interactions highlight a fine but immutable line. The New School Psychology Bulletin, 10(1), 27–36.Google Scholar
  10. Sanders, G. S. (1981). Driven by distraction: An integrative review of social facilitation theory and research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17(3), 227–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149(3681), 269–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Kinsey InstituteIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations