What Is Rough Sex, Who Does It, and Who Likes It? Findings from a Probability Sample of U.S. Undergraduate Students

Abstract

Using data from an undergraduate probability sample, we aimed to: (1) describe the prevalence and demographic characteristics of students who reported having engaged in rough sex with their current partner; (2) assess which sexual behaviors students consider to be rough sex; (3) describe the frequency with which participants report engaging in rough sex as well as their reports of initiating and liking rough sex, in relation to gender and sexual identity; and (4) examine predictors of rough sex frequency. Participants were 4998 students randomly sampled from a large Midwestern university who completed a confidential Internet-based survey (2453 women, 2445 men, 41 gender non-binary, 36 transgender or other gender non-conforming identities). Within these, 1795 individuals who reported a romantic/sexual partner of at least 3 months responded to questions about engaging, liking, and initiating rough sex. The most common behaviors participants considered to be rough sex were choking, hair pulling, and spanking. Transgender and gender non-binary students more often endorsed behaviors as rough sex. Also, rough sex was conceptualized as multidimensional, with one cluster being more consistent with earlier conceptualizations of rough sex (e.g., hair pulling, spanking) and the second cluster including behaviors such as choking, slapping, punching, and making someone have sex. About 80% of those with a current sexual or romantic partner engaged in rough sex with them and most who engaged it liked it. Bisexual women reported greater rough sex frequency and enjoyment (54.1% indicated enjoying it “very much”). Implications for sexuality research and education are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Approved Surveys. (2020). Surveys at IU Bloomington. Indiana University. Retrieved December 26, 2020 from https://surveys.indiana.edu/approved-surveys/index.html?term=4202.

  2. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bajos, N., Bozon, M., Beltzer, N., Laborde, C., Andro, A., Ferrand, M., … Levinson, S. (2010). Changes in sexual behaviours: From secular trends to public health policies. AIDS, 24, 1185–1191. https://doi.org/10.1097/qad.0b013e328336ad52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bonomi, A. E., Nemeth, J. M., Altenburger, L. E., Anderson, M. L., Snyder, A., & Dotto, I. (2014). Fiction or not? Fifty Shades is associated with health risks in adolescent and young adult females. Journal of Women’s Health, 23(9), 720–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bowcott, O., & Grierson, J. (2020). MPs to try to ban “rough sex” murder defence in domestic abuse bill. Retrieved June 3, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/28/mps-to-try-to-ban-rough-sex-defence-in-domestic-abuse-bill.

  6. Bridges, A. J., Sun, C. F., Ezzell, M. B., & Johnson, J. (2016). Sexual scripts and the sexual behavior of men and women who use pornography. Sexualization, Media, & Society, 2, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2374623816668275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Burch, R. L., & Salmon, C. (2019). The rough stuff: Understanding aggressive consensual sex. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5, 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-019-00196-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Burkill, S., Copas, A., Couper, M. P., Clifton, S., Prah, P., Datta, J., … Johnson, A. M. (2016). Using the web to collect data on sensitive behaviours: a study looking at mode effects on the British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. PLoS ONE, 11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147983.

  9. Buzash, G. E. (1989). The rough sex defense. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 80, 557–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Das, A., Parish, W. L., & Laumann, E. O. (2009). Masturbation in urban China. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9222-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dodge, B., Herbenick, D., Fu, T. C. J., Schick, V., Reece, M., Sanders, S. A., & Fortenberry, J. D. (2016). Sexual behaviors of US men by self-identified sexual orientation: Results from the 2012 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 13, 637–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Doucette, C. (2014). Jian Ghomeshi blames firing on ‘consensual’ rough sex. Retrieved June 3, 2020, from https://torontosun.com/2014/10/26/cbc-parts-ways-with-jian-ghomeshi/wcm/4d3ae88c-e700-4acc-bfe5-d41bc5b999a1.

  13. Dunkley, C. R., Henshaw, C. D., Henshaw, S. K., & Brotto, L. A. (2020). Physical pain as pleasure: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Sex Research, 57(4), 421–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Edenfield, A. C. (2019). Queering consent: Design and sexual consent messaging. Communication Design Quarterly Review, 7, 50–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ellis, H. (1905). Studies in the psychology of sex (Vol. 1). London: William Heinemann Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fanghanel, A. (2020). Asking for it: BDSM sexual practices and the trouble of consent. Sexualities, 23, 269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fritz, N., & Paul, B. (2017). From orgasms to spanking: A content analysis of the agentic and objectifying sexual scripts in feminist, for women, and mainstream pornography. Sex Roles, 77, 639–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0759-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gerressu, M., Mercer, C. H., Graham, C. A., Wellings, K., & Johnson, A. M. (2008). Prevalence of masturbation and associated factors in a British national probability survey. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 266–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9123-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gilmour, P. (2017). Rough sex ideas and tips for pleasurable but safe experiences. Retrieved June 3, 2020, from https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/love-sex/sex/a14414784/rough-sex-tips/.

  20. Herbenick, D., Bartelt, E., Fu, T. C., Paul, B., Gradus, R., Bauer, J., & Jones, R. (2019). Feeling scared during sex: Findings and implications from a U.S. probability sample of women and men ages 14 to 60. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 45, 424–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623x.2018.1549634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Herbenick, D., Bowling, J., Fu, T. C., 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, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Herbenick, D., Fu, T. C., Wright, P., Paul, B., Gradus, R., Bauer, J., & Jones, R. (2020). Pornography use and diverse sexual behaviors: Findings from a nationally representative survey of Americans ages 14 to 60. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 17, 623–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.01.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Herbenick, D., Reece, M., Sanders, S., Dodge, B., Ghassemi, A., & Fortenberry, J. D. (2009). Prevalence and characteristics of vibrator use by women in the United States: Results from a nationally representative study. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6, 1857–1866. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01318.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Herbenick, D., Reece, M., Schick, V., Sanders, S., Dodge, B., & Fortenberry, J. D. (2010). Sexual behavior in the United States: Results from a national probability sample of men and women ages 14–94. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02012.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Honkatukia, P. (2001). Rough sex? Understandings of rape in Finnish police reports. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 2, 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/140438501317205529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jang, E. E., & Roussos, L. (2007). An investigation into the dimensionality of TOEFL using conditional covariance-based nonparametric approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2007.00024.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Johnson, C., Stirratt, B., & Bancroft, J. (Eds.). (2002). Sex and humor: Selections from the Kinsey Institute. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kim, H. R. (1994). New techniques for the dimensionality assessment of standardized test data. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 55, 5598.

  29. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kontula, O., & Haavio-Mannila, E. (2003). Masturbation in a generational perspective. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 14, 49–83. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v14n02_05.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Krishan, Y. (1972). The erotic sculptures of India. Artibus Asiae, 34, 331–343. https://doi.org/10.2307/3249625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Labrecque, F., Potz, A., Larouche, É., & Joyal, C. C. (2020). What is so appealing about being spanked, flogged, dominated, or restrained? Answers from practitioners of sexual masochism/submission. Journal of Sex Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2020.1767025.

  34. Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lin, I., & Schaeffer, N. C. (1955). Using survey participants to estimate the impact of nonparticipation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 236–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lucić, M., Baćak, V., & Štulhofer, A. (2020). The role of peer networks in adolescent pornography use and sexting in Croatia. Journal of Children and Media, 14, 110–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. McKee, A., McNair, B., & Watson, A. F. (2014). Sex and the virtual suburbs: The pornosphere and community standards. In P. J. Maginn & C. Steinmetz (Eds.), (Sub)urban sexscapes: Geographies and regulation of the sex industry (pp. 159–174). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203737569-9.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Miller, D. J., McBain, K. A., & Raggatt, P. T. F. (2019). An experimental investigation into pornography’s effect on men’s perceptions of the likelihood of women engaging in porn-like sex. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 8, 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Moore, A., & Khan, C. (2019). The fatal, hateful rise of choking during sex. Retrieved November, 24, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/25/fatal-hateful-rise-of-choking-during-sex.

  40. Mosher, C. D., MaHood, J., & Wenburg, K. (1980). The Mosher survey: Sexual attitudes of 45 Victorian women. New York: Arno Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. O’Sullivan, L. F., Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F., & Watkins, B. X. (2001). Mother–daughter communication about sex among urban African American and Latino families. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 269–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Pornhub.com. (2019). The 2019 year in review. Retrieved June 4, 2020 from https://www.pornhub.com/insights/2019-year-in-review.

  43. Pouillet, T. (1880). L’Onanisme Chez La Femme (3rd ed.). Paris: V. Adrien Delahaye.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Reage, P. (1972). Story of O. New York: Grove Press. (Original work published 1954)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Reece, M., Herbenick, D., Sanders, S. A., Dodge, B., Ghassemi, A., & Fortenberry, J. D. (2009). Prevalence and characteristics of vibrator use by men in the United States. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6(7), 1867–1874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Richters, J., Grulich, A. E., de Visser, R. O., Smith, A. M., & Rissel, C. E. (2003). Sex in Australia: Autoerotic, esoteric and other sexual practices engaged in by a representative sample of adults. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 27, 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842x.2003.tb00806.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Richters, J., de Visser, R. O., Badcock, P. B., Smith, A. M., Rissel, C., Simpson, J. M., & Grulich, A. E. (2014). Masturbation, paying for sex, and other sexual activities: The second Australian Study of Health and Relationships. Sexual Health, 11, 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1071/sh14116.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Robbins, C. L., Schick, V., Reece, M., Herbenick, D., Sanders, S. A., Dodge, B., & Fortenberry, J. D. (2011). Prevalence, frequency, and associations of masturbation with partnered sexual behaviors among US adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 165, 1087–1093. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rosenberg, M., Townes, A., Taylor, S., Luetke, M., & Herbenick, D. (2019). Quantifying the magnitude and potential influence of missing data in campus sexual assault surveys: A systematic review of surveys, 2010–2016. Journal of American College Health, 67, 42–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rothman, E. F. (2019). Preventing sexual violence on campus in the US: Four thought experiments. Journal of Family Violence, 34, 177–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C. S. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger (pp. 142–178). Boston: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ryan, K. M., & Mohr, S. (2005). Gender differences in playful aggression during courtship in college students. Sex Roles, 53, 591–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-7144-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Stout, W., Habing, B., Douglas, J., Kim, H. R., Roussos, L., & Zhang, J. (1996). Conditional covariance-based nonparametric multidimensionality assessment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 331–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169602000403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sun, C. F., Wright, P., & Steffen, N. (2017). German heterosexual women’s pornography consumption and sexual behavior. Sexualization, Media, & Society, 3, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2374623817698113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Træen, B., & Daneback, K. (2013). The use of pornography and sexual behaviour among Norwegian men and women of differing sexual orientation. Sexologies, 22(2), e41–e48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Tsaros, A. (2013). Consensual non-consent: Comparing EL James’s Fifty Shades of Grey and Pauline Réage’s Story of O. Sexualities, 16(8), 864–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Vogels, E. A., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2019). The relationship among online sexually explicit material exposure to, desire for, and participation in rough sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48, 653–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1290-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Wellings, K. (1994). Sexual behaviour in Britain: The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Williams, D. J., Thomas, J. N., Prior, E. E., & Christensen, M. C. (2014). From “SSC” and “RACK” to the “4Cs”: Introducing a new framework for negotiating BDSM participation. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 17(5), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Wright, P. J. (2011). Mass media effects on youth sexual behavior assessing the claim for causality. Annals of the International Communication Association, 35, 343–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Wright, P. J., Sun, C., Steffen, N. J., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2016). Pornography, alcohol, and male sexual dominance. Communication Monographs, 82, 252–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2014.981558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wright, P. J., Tokunaga, R. S., & Kraus, A. (2015). A meta-analysis of pornography consumption and actual sexual aggression in general population studies. Journal of Communication, 66, 315–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Zhang, J., & Stout, W. (1999a). Conditional covariance structure of generalized compensatory multidimensional items. Psychometrika, 64, 129–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Zhang, J., & Stout, W. (1999b). The theoretical DETECT index of dimensionality and its application to approximate simple structure. Psychometrika, 64, 213–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Dean’s Office at the Indiana University School of Public Health for their generous support of this research.

Funding

The study was supported through internal support from the Indiana University School of Public Health.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debby Herbenick.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The research involved human subjects and, as noted in the context, the institutional review board at Indiana University reviewed and approved study protocols and measures (Protocol 1912431788).

Informed Consent

Participants reviewed an IRB-approved Study Information Sheet and indicated consent to participate prior to completing the survey.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Herbenick, D., Fu, Tc., Valdivia, D.S. et al. What Is Rough Sex, Who Does It, and Who Likes It? Findings from a Probability Sample of U.S. Undergraduate Students. Arch Sex Behav (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-01917-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Rough sex
  • BDSM
  • Sexual choking
  • Spanking
  • College sexuality