Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s10508-011-9851-0
ORIGINAL PAPER
Received: 24 October 2007 / Revised: 10 December 2010 / Accepted: 27 July 2011 / Published online: 24 September 2011
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Introduction
Researchershavenotedmensreportsofhavingunwantedsexual
experiences with women. Felton, Gumm, and Pittengers (2001)
sample of 146 college students (81 female, 65 male) gleaned that
12.3% of the men (compared with 11.1% of the women) had
J. L. Fagen (&)
Department of Sociology, Social Work, and Criminal Justice,
Faculty of Sociology, Lamar University, Beaumont,
TX 77710, USA
e-mail: jfagen@my.lamar.edu
P. B. Anderson
Faculty of College of Health Sciences, Walden University,
Minneapolis, MN, USA
123
262
gaining a true understanding of the complexities of this phenomenon as it affects both sexes.
The current research fills this gap in the literature by ascertaining how men describe unwanted sexual experiences with
women in their own words. Instead of attempting todegender
women, this research reconceptualizes men as embodiedor
genderedsubjects whose experiences are contingent upon
their social location. Embodiment indicates that humans experience and perceive the world through the body or, as Harstock
(2006) stated,bodies tell stories(p. 182). Once men are viewed
as embodied subjects, the ways in which masculinity informs
mens perception of unwanted sexual experiences can be elucidated. We know of no study of womens initiation of sexual contact that allowed men to frame and define their experiences of
that contact through in-depth interviews.
The traditional sexual script, which was first defined by
Gagnon and Simon (1973), guides thesequencing of sexual
behavior leading to intercourse(Frith & Kitzinger, 2001). There
are manylayersto the traditional sexual script. The sexual
behaviors that are informed by social norms regardingproper
masculine and feminine gender roles, such as which sex should
initiate each type of sexual contact, is referred to as the cultural
scenario. The cultural scenario only works at a theoretical level,
as it may not coincide with the interpersonal script, which is the
behavior that actually occurs during a sexual encounter. The intrapsychic script refers to ones own sexual desires, which may conflict with the cultural and/or interpersonal scripts (Gagnon &
Simon, 1973; Simon & Gagnon, 1987, 2003). For instance,
although the cultural script dictates that a man should always be
willing and ready to engage in a sexual encounter with a woman,
he may not feel comfortable doing so when the moment arises.
Further, he may desire being in a submissive sexual role (intrapersonal script), which may contradict his cultural script. The
interpretation of these violations is foreground in our research.
The possibility that men may interpret a cultural scenario violation as sexual aggression is a prospect worthy of exploration.
Once again, the traditional sexual script dictates that men are
supposedtobetheinitiators,whichrelegateswomentotheroleof
sexual gatekeeper,the one who sets limits on a mans sexual
advances. Researchers have argued in support of several reasons
why women become sexual gatekeepers. First, parental investment theory, which draws from both social and evolutionary
explanationstoaccountformensandwomensdifferentsexual
strategies, posits that women are more likely to refuse mens
sexualinitiativessincewomenhavemoreatstakeiftheybecome
pregnant (e.g., time, financial resources) (Bjorklund & Shackelford, 1999; Buss, 1994). Other researchers claim that womens
sexual gatekeeping preserves the assumption that women do not
enjoy sex as much as men (the male sex drive discourse), which
leads to an inhibition of womens sexual expression (Albino
Gilbert,Walker,McKinney,&Snell,1999).Moreover,sincesex
with many partners lowers a womans worth while enhancing a
mans (Littleton & Axsom, 2003; Milhausen & Herold, 1999), a
123
Method
Participants
This study involved in-depth, face-to-face interviews with 20
men, most of whom were students at a large university in the
northeastern U.S. Only one of the participants was married at the
time of the study (none of the other participants had ever been
Measures
A schedule of nine interview questions (see Appendix) was
followed during each interview. The questions were simply used
as prompts to elicit feedback from participants. Pre-topical
discussions were also used as a tool to elicit definitions from
participants that were consistent with their experiences, as
opposed to using terms (i.e., sexual coercion, rape, sexual victimization) with which they may not associate. Participants were
told that they should treat the interview as an informal conversation and were encouraged to discuss their experiences openly.
Procedure
After the IRB approved the investigation, participants were
recruited via posters placed around theuniversity anddistributed
to several sociology and criminal justice classes. The recruitment posters read: Male participants needed for a study on
unwanted sexual experiences with women. Would you be
willing to contribute to a study that raises awareness that this
happens to adult men? Your input will be confidential and
greatly appreciated. Participants were not compensated for
their participation and interviews were conducted with only
one participant at a time.
Interviews were conducted over a period ranging from the
summer of 2004 to the summer of 2005 as it took approximately
a year to recruit 20 men for this investigation. The average
length of each interview was 75 min, during which time a semistructured conversation took place in a private office in the
universitys sociology department. Interviews were audiotaped
and fully transcribed by the primary investigator. Each subject
was given a written consent form, which was approved by the
Human Subjects Committee, to read and sign prior to commencing the interview. Each participant was then reminded of
his right to terminate the interview at any time and for any
reason. None of the subjects chose to terminate the interview
process. Subjects were also provided with a list of psychologists
and rape counselors (including counselors on campus) whom
they could contact with any issues regarding their sexual
experiences. All counselors and psychologists on the list were
called in advance of the investigation to ensure that they would
be willing to see participants/take on new clients if necessary.
263
A Demographic questionnaire asking subjects age, marital status, living situation, socioeconomic status, religious affiliation,
and sexual orientation were completed by subjects immediately
following the interview.
The interview process was informed by Devaults (1990,
1999) and Kaufmans (1991) methodological guidelines. The
primary goal was to transform the interviewee from a mere
subject into an integral part of the investigation. Men typically
do not have the opportunity to discuss unwanted sexual experiences. Therefore, they might not have access to words that
adequately describe their experiences. Since the purpose of
the current investigation was to ascertain mens experiences
through their eyes,unwanted sexual experienceswas defined
by participants during the interview processnot by using preexisting definitions that have yet to be informed by mens experiences. This process allowed men to construct their own meanings of their experiences.
As delineated below, although Devaults (1999, 1990) work
informed our research, we were most concerned with participants subjective perceptions of their unwanted sexual experiences. That is, we did not want participants to be limited by
structured questions that reflected ouror societysgendered
assumptions. As Mayer, Kosmin, and Keysar (2001) explain,
The discovery of the social boundaries is determined as much
by the questions asked as by the subjective meaning associated
with those questions on the part of the respondent (p. 17).
Therefore, interviews were purposefully unstructured in order
to allow men to speak in their own voices. This technique, to
which Kaufman (1991) refers as structured conversations or
loosely structured interviews,allowed men to be the subjects
rather than the objects of our research.
Attentiontoprocessesoftranslationwasappliedtotheediting
process. Linguisticquirkswere left intact in the transcription
process. These linguistic quirks include hesitations, self-corrections, and contradictory speech (Devault, 1990). Although
some of theumshave been deleted in order to draw attention to
the content of the narratives, it was important to preserve participants speech in order to reveal the gendered nature of their
experiences.AsDevault(1999)explains,thepurposeoffeminist
research is to recover gendered meanings that have yet to be
unearthed since traditional language does not allow for its
expression. The linguistic quirks reveal these gendered meanings and cannot be edited without obfuscating the gendered
nature of mens experiences. An example of a self-correction is
evident in the following participants narrative: I have been
forced, like, ah, when I went to a private school. I wasnt forced,
uhMost importantly, since this was an exploratory study, we
looked for common themes that emerged throughout the narratives, rather than constructing our analytic framework a priori.
Finally, when writing about an investigation, the labeling
process is essential. Labels can validate or invalidate experiences. Hence, the analysis of narratives reflects the labels participants used to describe their experiences during the interview
123
264
123
with knowing that women would provide sexual favors for them
while refusing to sexually gratify these women in return. These
men seemed to feel comfortable with their masculinity as they
were able to be flexible in this identity; they could play the traditionally feminine role of sexual object and then reassert their
control (and hence their masculinity) seamlessly.
Carl was 20 years old at the time of the interview and stated
that he was sexually coerced by his 21-year-old woman
friend. One night, after drinking a lot of alcohol, his friends
flirtation became increasingly bold, which amused Carl as he
could get her to perform any sexual favors he requested:
She just basically made a move and at that point I was still
like,Maybe not, maybe not.Im, you know, being hard
to get and seeing what I could get her to do. And shes
doin everything and anything that I could ask her to. At
this point, I was having a blast, um, but still not committing to doing anything.
Despite the fact that the woman was being sexually initiative,
this situation was consistent with the traditional sexual script
in that Carl was orchestrating her every move. The situation
went from being perceived as a blast to being perceived as
coercivewhen she suggested that she wanted to have sex for
her own pleasure. Despite Carls redefinition of this situation,
he eventually gave in and had sexual intercourse with her,
claiming that she got him tothe point of no return:
If shes physically, you know, doing things to turn me on,
or shes doing things, saying things, she really, really
getting me into the moment, into the mooda lot of other
things that I might be thinking about may be totally forgottenshe set a pretty good trap.
Aidan is an Asian, Catholic man who was 21 and single at the
time of the interview. He described an incident that occurred
when he was at a fraternity party about 3 years prior to the
interview that he labeled sexually coercive. Aidan claimed
that an 18-year-old woman had been trying to get him drunk in
order to manipulate him into having a one-night-stand. Like
Carl, he found this womans interest in him amusing and decided to play hard to get in order to see how far she would go in her
attempts to get him to have intercourse with her:
I just played along cause I can hold my liquor pretty well
so I just played along with herI think she just wanted a
one night thing, you knowI knew she wanted to get in
bed with me and I didnt want to do anything. The whole
night we were there I just knew it. I was just like playing
her game. I just tried playing it as long as possible until she
likeuntil she gave up, which she basically did.
This woman was not benefiting from her efforts to seduce
Aidan. As soon as she got to the point at which there might have
been sexual contact that benefitted her, Aidan put an end to the
game,as the following excerpt indicates:
265
to persuade him to have sex. Since Justin and his girlfriend broke
up, he had never let their sexual intimacy lead to sexual intercourse. He recounted pushing her off of him at times in order to
prevent sexual intercourse from occurring.
Justin explains the stupidity of aggressive girls. Of particular interest is that Justin asserted that women render themselves powerless and vulnerable when they are sexually aggressive. He then contradicted himself by claiming that his ex-girlfriend used sexual assertiveness to gain power over him. This
contradiction lends itself to the interpretation that the participants obvious irritation with women who put out may be
attributed to his perception that this behavior is used to exert
control over him (and men in general), as he suggested in the
following excerpt:
Oh [laughter]. Wellguys are assholes on the whole like
and even if there is a nicelike Im a nice guy, I really
am, like Im still an idiot when it comes to some things like
Im still an asshole, but, and not to offend you in any
wayI hope I dontbut girls are stupid. Girls are really
stupid [laughter]! They just shouldnt put themselves in
the situation like ififespecially this girlshe knows
whats going on and I said it to her face so many times and
just drilled it into her brain, she shouldnt be lying in my
bed naked like looking for this like she should know that
Im taking advantage of herher control over me was her
having sex with meher having sexual acts with me or
whatever. But, in the long run, it just proved that I kind of
got annoyed with it. It wasnt any fun anymore; like I
knew that I could just go have sex with this girl. Ilike I
could do whatever I want with her and wheres the fun in
that? Id rather have a girl whos a lot more liketheres
more of a pursuit, I guess.
Although Justin cited his ex-girlfriends emotional attachment as the primary reason why he did not want to have intercourse with her, his real reason was revealed when he contrasted
the ex-girlfriend (who initiated sex) with the new girlfriend who
allowed him to retain power in their intimate relationship:
Shes like my friend fromone of my best friends from
back homethis is like her first like relatlike in high
school she was really, really reserved. She never had like a
boyfriend, I dont think she like got kissed in high school.
She was always really, really pretty girlshes an awesome, awesome girl, but shes also very innocent, very,
um, stillshe still is reserved, so itsits a lot more of
like a pursuit, trying toeven likeits like Im the
aggressor now kind of instead of having to deal with this
girl whos always all over me
The issue that Justin had with women who tried to exert
control over him by not allowing him to be the sexual initiator
also extended to women he did not know. Again, Justin constructed his masculinity by equating womens manipulation/
123
266
123
267
Noah was 39 years old and single at the time of the interview.
He is a white, Roman Catholic, heterosexual male. When he was
18 years old, Noah was picked up by a woman while hitchhiking. He was not drinking, although it is unclear as to whether or
not the driver was sober. Once Noah was in the car, the woman,
who he said was approximately a year or two younger than he,
pulled over to the side of the road in a desolate area, reached
over, unzipped his pants, and began to perform oral sex on him.
This experience was described by Noah ascoercive.He stated:
I think what bugged me about thatclearly the coercive nature
of it it was definitely coerciveUh, yeah. The whole thing
was creepy. Despite the fact that Noah initially described this
situation as coercive, he was not only complicit in the womans
initiatives, but he also sought to regain control over the situation by attempting to touch her sexually. However, the woman
repeatedly refused these attempts, which made Noah feel disempowered:
So then she, uh, you know, just leaned across the seat and
went at it and I reached out to the back of her and started
using my hands and she said No, no, no, just you, just
you The situation was not in my control. She was
completelyliterally and figuratively in the drivers seat.
When asked how he felt about this incident, Noah indicated
that he felt ashamed and empty. However, his feelings were
not associated with the sexual act itself. Instead, he attributed
feelings of shame and emptiness to the womans aggression
and coldness. After the woman performed oral sex, she
expected him to get out of the car and walk the rest of the way
home:
Horrified may be an overstatement. How empty I felt
after. Like when a woman describes having a one-nighter
on campus and then walking home the next day feeling
ashamed, like thats how I felt getting out of the car. I dont
think I was necessarily ashamed by what happened. It was
almost like totally like shocked at her coldness and her
aggression, you know? So thats what I remember thinkingThis girlshe was a girlwas like an aggressiveand I want to put it in quotesquote unquote like
an aggressive man and, you know, and thats, uhI think
thats surprising and, like at the same time, my reaction
was that I was used, which sounds crazy.
Noah described another situation when he had sexual intercourse with a complete stranger that he did not labelcoercive.
One night, when he was 19 years old, Noah was walking on a
boardwalk by a beach. He noticed that the woman walking in
front of him kept turning around to look at him. Noah thought
that this woman was interested in asexual liaison,so he asked
her if she wanted to go to the beach, where they had sexual
intercourse. Since a conversation hadnt preceded their sexual
contact (Noah claimed they spoke no more thanthree wordsto
123
268
and the next thing I remember is that [his friend] left the
room cause he just wasnt interested in going that farhe
was a virginso he wouldnt go that far and he left, and
she came back later and realized that I was passed out and
basically just did what she wanted to, so, and, I, uh, the
only conscious action I remember having at the time was
that later on that morning, like probably a couple of hours
later when I kinda realized what happened, I just like
crawled in the shower like cause I didnt know this girl
[laughter]Im trying to scrub my skin off, do you know
what Im saying? I didnt know where this girl had been,
but I knew she had a kid and thats it. I didnt know her
name, I never met her before or anything, so, and thats
pretty much the whole story.
123
and women are denied sexual agency. Since a woman who initiates sex is transgressing her gender role, she can be perceived
as being aggressive or manipulative. In addition, since it is
consistent with masculinity to take a proactive role in heterosexual sex, a mans objectification by an initiative woman can be
experienced as a violation. That is, the experience of womens
perceived sexual aggression violates every assumption of masculinity. Since men are socialized to believe that masculinity is
contingent upon the rejection and devaluation of the feminine,
being put in thefeminineposition in a sexual encounter could
be perceived as a thoroughly gendered experience. In order to
regain their proactive role in the traditional sexual script, male
participants set limitations on and, in some cases, vehemently
refused, womens sexual advances. Hence, in our research, male
sexual gatekeeping can be reinterpreted as a new form of masculinization.
According to McIntosh (1988), it is imperative that data
gleaned from studies of mens sexual coercion be explained in
terms of the institutionalized and embedded forms of male
privilege. In this study, mainstream discourses of unwanted sexual experiences, which are framed by womens experiences,
were inadequate in describing mens lived experiences.
This research adds to the vocabulary of sexual coercion and
points to a need to reframe sexual coercion as a gender-specific,
embodied experience. The ubiquity of gender tends to make
it difficult to elucidate precisely how, and under what conditions, it is constructed. The construction of gender (and gender
inequality) is most visible when gender roles are violated. The
current research was able to reveal how masculinity was constructed through heterosexual sex at the moment when this gender role was transgressed. Participants reportedly felt violated,
or diminished, when put into the traditional female role. These
men constructed gender through their narratives of sexual victimization. As Purvis and Hunt (1993) state, what makes
some discourses ideological is their connection with systems of
domination. Ideological discourses contain forms of signification that are incorporated into lived experience(p. 497).
Appendix
Interview Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
269
8.
9.
References
Albino Gilbert, L., Walker, S. J., McKinney, S., & Snell, J. L. (1999).
Challenging discourse themes reproducing gender in heterosexual
dating: An analog study. Sex Roles, 41, 753774.
Anderson, P. B., & Aymami, R. (1993). Reports of female initiation of
sexual contact: Male and female differences. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 22, 335343.
Anderson, P. B., & Sorenson, W. (1999). Male and female differences in
reports of womens heterosexual initiation and aggression. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 28, 285295.
Bjorklund, D. F., & Shackelford, T. K. (1999). Differences in parental
investment contribute to important differences between men and
women. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 8689.
Burt, M. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217230.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire. New York: Basic Books.
Devault, M. (1990). Talking and listening from womens standpoint:
Feminist strategies for interviewing and analysis. Social Problems,
37, 96117.
Devault, M. (1999). Liberating method: Feminism and social research.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Felton, L., Gumm, A., & Pittenger, D. J. (2001). Recipients of unwanted
sexual encounters among college students. College Student Journal,
35, 135143.
Frith, H., & Kitzinger, C. (2001). Reformulating sexual script theory:
Developing a discursive psychology of sexual negotiation. Theory
and Psychology, 11, 209232.
Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct. London: Hutchinson.
Harstock, N. (2006). Experience, embodiment, and epistemologies. Hypatia, 21, 178183.
Kaufman, D. (1991). Rachels daughters: Newly orthodox Jewish women.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Koss, M. J., & Oros, C. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research
instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization in a
national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162170.
Larimer, M. E., Lydum, A. R., Anderson, B. K., & Turner, A. P. (1999). Male
and female recipients of unwanted sexual contact in a college student sample: Prevalence rates, alcohol use, and depression symptoms.
Sex Roles, 40, 295308.
Littleton, H. L., & Axsom, D. (2003). Rape and seduction scripts of
university students: Implications for rape attributions and unacknowledged rape. Sex Roles, 49, 465476.
Lottes, I. (1993). Nontraditional gender roles and the sexual experiences
of heterosexual college students. Sex Roles, 29, 645670.
Mayer, E., Kosmin, B., & Keysar, A. (2001). American Jewish identity
survey. Center for Jewish Studies: Graduate Center of the City University of New York.
McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in womens
studies (Working Paper No. 189). Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College
Centre for Research on Women.
Milhausen, R. R., & Herold, E. S. (1999). Does the sexual double
standard still exist? Perceptions of university women. Journal of
Sex Research, 36, 361368.
Murnen, S. K., Wright, C., & Kaluzny, G. (2002). Ifboys will be boys,
then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research
that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 48,
359376.
123
270
Purvis, T., & Hunt, A. (1993). Discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology,
discourse, ideology. British Journal of Sociology, 44, 473499.
Russell, B. L., & Oswald, D. L. (2001). Strategies and dispositional
correlates of sexual coercion perpetrated by women: An exploratory
investigation. Sex Roles, 45, 103116.
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.