Volume 41, Number 1, March 2009 By Christine Christine Elizabeth Kaest - PDF document

Volume 41, Number 1, March 2009 By Christine Christine Elizabeth Kaestle is assistant professor, Department of Human Develop-ment, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA. Sexual Insistence and Disliked Sexual Activities In Young Adulthood: Di erences by Gender And Relationship CharacteristicsCONTEXT: SRH_kaestle.indd 33 2/24/09 10:18:50 AM Volume 41, Number 1, March 2009 opposite sex; the relationship had to be of at least three monthsÕ duration* and had to qualify as one of the respon-dentÕs two most important relationships (as categorized by a scheme that gave priority to current relationships, mar-riages and relationships that resulted in pregnancy). Of the 14,322 Wave 3 respondents who were assigned weights by Add Health, 4,469 were in a qualifying relationship vaginal, oral and anal sex activity with the current partner; occurrence of sexual insistence in the relationship; how much they liked various sexual activities; and perceived levels of love between partners. This group made up the Sexual insistence was deÞ ned to in-clude any method of making or insisting that a reluctant partner engage in unwanted sexual relations. Respon-dents were asked, ÒHow often have you insisted on or made [partner] have sexual relations with you when [he/she] didnÕt want to?Ó and ÒHow often has [partner] insist-ed on or made you have sexual relations with [him/her] when you didnÕt want to?Ó For each question, respon-dents could indicate never, once, twice, 3Ð5 times, 6Ð10 times, 11Ð20 times or more than 20 times. A response other than ÒneverÓ was coded as a yes for insistence per- rst question) or insistence victimization (sec-ond question). Individuals may freely consent without pressure to sexual activities that they dislike or may consent because of subtle pressure that may not be captured by the sexual insistence ques-tion. Therefore, in addition to the direct question on sexual insistence, analyses include measures of disliked experiences. Respondents were asked if they had ever engaged in vaginal sex, fellatio, cunnilingus or anal sex with their partner. If they indicated they had engaged c sexual activity, they were asked if they had done so once or more than once, as well as how much they liked participating in that activity with their partner. For the latter question, response options were Òlike very like somewhatÓ and Òdislike very much.Ó Respondents were then asked if they expect to engage in that activity with that partner again. Those who indicated that they disliked the activity very much and either had engaged in it more than once or expected to engage in it again were coded positive for repeating disliked sexual activi-ties. By excluding people who disliked an activity but had engaged in it only once and did not expect to again, the measure does not count those who experimented with an activity once and then dropped it when they Type of relationship was cat-ner and perceived love from partner were assessed by two questions: how much respondents loved their partner and choices were Òa lot,Ó Òsomewhat,Ó Òa littleÓ and Ònot at all.Ó On the basis of these answers, the relationship was charac-neither partner loved the other a lot, the respondent loved his or her partner a lot (not reciprocated), or the partner loved the respondent a lot (not reciprocated). The analyses include re-spondentsÕ current age (measured as a continuous vari-Add HealthÕs sampling design in all analyses, and to pro-vide estimates that are standardized to the U.S. Census *In addition to being asked whether the relationship was at least three months old, respondents were asked the date on which the relationship started, so the exact duration could be calculated. However, because this measure had substantial missing data, exact duration was not included in the analyses presented here. Analyses that controlled for duration in the subgroup who provided that information produced similar results to those described here. TABLE 1. Percentage distributions and percentages of young adults currently in a relationship of at least three months duration, by selected characteristics, according to gender, National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, 2001…2002 CharacteristicTotalMaleFemalePERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONSType of relationship*CohabitingMarriedRaceWhite70.368.771.5Latino11.012.79.8Black12.712.712.7Asian3.13.13.0Other2.92.82.9Perception of love in current relationship*Neither partner loves the other a lot6.47.15.9Partners love each other a lot85.482.787.5Respondent loves partner a lot (not reciprocated)3.52.64.1Partner loves respondent a lot (not reciprocated)4.77.62.5Total100.0100.0100.0PERCENTAGESSexual insistence in current relationshipAny8.98.39.3Perpetration by respondent4.34.34.3Victimization by respondent7.26.67.7Repeated disliked activities in current relationshipAny*8.03.311.6Vaginal sex0.5Fellatio*3.35.7Cunnilingus*1.92.71.3Anal sex*2.94.7*Gender differences are signiÞ cant at p Percentages are weighted and may not add to 100.0 because of rounding. PSRH_kaestle.indd 35 2/24/09 10:18:54 AM Volume 41, Number 1, March 2009 (odds ratios, 2.9 and 2.7, respectively). Women who loved their partner Òa lotÓ but felt that their level of love was not reciprocated had higher odds of perpetration than those in relationships with high levels of mutual In preliminary analyses, wom-en had marginally higher odds of insistence victimization ed analyses demonstrated that insistence victimization re-sulting in sexual relations was predicted by relationship characteristics for men and women (Table 3). Men in re-lationships with unreciprocated levels of love had higher in relationships in which high levels of love were mutual (1.9). Women who reported that neither partner loved the other a lot or that one partner felt unreciprocated Women were signiÞ cantly more likely than men to report having repeatedly engaged in sexual addition, married women had higher odds of repeatedly en (1.8ÑTable 3). Health professionals and relational therapists who provide services and guidance to young adults should be aware that a substantial proportion of relationships fellatio and anal intercourse. Both men and women may need education on the importance of accepting initial re-fusals and being sensitive to both a partnerÕs unwillingness to engage in an activity and the true extent of a partnerÕs on how to voice their own preferences and dislikes. Some individuals may need assistance to leave relationships if insistence is physical or highly coercive, causing them distress. Consistent with results of previous research on co-ercion, ndings from this study suggest that rates of sexual insistence victimization are higher than rates of per-petration. While the differences likely reß ect differences in the social desirability of reporting such acts, they may also reß ect a failure of perpetrators to fully recognize that their partners are unwilling or that their own behaviors may be perceived as pressure or insistence. Differences in reports of sexual insistence stemming from misunderstandings or differing perceptions would highlight the need for better educational efforts to help men and women understand each othersÕ perspectives. However, the reports of insis-partnersÕ initial unwillingness to have intercourse, but in-sist or employ coercive tactics anyway.Sexual insistence was reciprocated in many relation-ships, and reports of perpetration and victimization were ndings may imply that for some rela-use coercive tactics tend to Þ nd partners who also incor-porate coercion in their behavioral strategies. Mutual sex-regarding sexual desires and expression.Multivariate analyses revealed some unexpected results. The factors predicting repeated disliked activities and ex-periences with sexual insistence were very different, in-dicating that even though these outcomes are associated with each other, they capture different phenomena. Gen-der was the primary predictor of repeated participation in disliked sexual acts, but was not associated with reports of sexual insistence, for which relationship characteristics were signiÞ cant predictors. nding that women were more likely than men to have repeatedly engaged in disliked activities supports the role of gender as a critical factor in sexual scripts and sex- nding that the majority of those who reported disliked activities did not report partner insistence, this Þ nding indicates that many women freely comply with disliked sexual activities. These results are consistent with Þ ndings from studies indicat-ing greater sexual compliance among women than among Sexual scripts that emphasize male pleasure and portray men as insatiable aggressors and women as passive relationship caretakers increase the likelihood that women will experience all of these reasons to be compliant to a greater extent than men. Young people might expect that their having unwant-ed sex will be reciprocated with beneÞ ts in some other area of the relationship. However, this is not necessarily true. For instance, if women are less likely than men to hold substantial power in a relationship or if their sexual ces and favors are made quietly and go unrecog-nized, their compromises may not be reciprocated. In cing in multiple areas of the relationship. We need more re-search on how sacriÞ ces or compliance in sexual matters may be reciprocated in other areas of the relationship and how these dynamics may relate to gender and gen-Interdependence theory supports the hypothesis that individuals who feel they love their partner more than their partner loves them may be more likely than others to engage in disliked sexual activity. However, in the cur-rent study, love and the reciprocity of love did not predict Perceived patterns of love within a relationship were, however, associated with sexual insistence. These results support the idea that people who feel they are in non-equitable relationships may become distressed and try to restore equity. Sexual insistence victimization was PSRH_kaestle.indd 37 2/24/09 10:18:56 AM Volume 41, Number 1, March 2009 Craig ME, Kalichman SC and Follingstad DR, Verbal coercive Archives of Sexual Behavior, cal sexual coercion: characteristics of those who cross the line, Vio-lence and Victims,The Social Psychology of Groups, York: Wiley, 1959.Crockett L, Raffaelli M and Moilanen K, Adolescent sexuality: Blackwell The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Prac-tices in the United States, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.Crockett LJ et al., Timing of Þ rst sexual intercourse: the role of social control, social learning, and problem behavior, Journal of Youth Wiederman MW, The gendered nature of sexual scripts, Journal,Kiefer AK and Sanchez DT, Scripting sexual passivity: a gender role perspective, Hogben M and Waterman C, Patterns of conß ict resolution with-in relationships and coercive sexual behavior of men and women, Chantala K and Tabor J, cent Health: Strategies to Perform a Design-Based Analysis Using the Add Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, 1999.STATACorp, Stata Statistical Software: Release 7.0, College Station, Sprecher S, Social exchange theories and sexuality, Journal of Sex Research,Shackelford TK and Goetz AT, MenÕs sexual coercion in inti-mate relationships: development and initial validation of the Sexual Coer Violence and Victims, 2004, OÕSullivan LF, Sexual coercion in dating relationships: concep-Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 2005, Rapaport K and Burkhart BR, Personality and attitudinal char-acteristics of sexually coercive college males, Journal of Abnormal Psychology,Kann L et al., An assessment of the effect of data collection setting on the prevalence of health risk behaviors among adolescents, Journal Turner CF et al., Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and vio-lence: increased reporting with computer survey technology, wanted sex with a dating partner: insights from attachment theory, Psychology of Women Quarterly,MacDonald TK, Ambivalence and unprotected sex: failure to pre-dict sexual activity and decreased condom use, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,AcknowledgmentsSincere thanks go to Carolyn Halpern for her comments and guid-ance on this work. Support for this study was provided by the Virginia Tech Dean’s Faculty Fellowship Research Grant. This re-search uses data from Add Health, a program project designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman and Kathleen Mullan Harris, and funded by a grant P01-HD31921 from the National Insti-tute of tive funding from 17 in the original design. Persons interested in obtaining data  les from Add Health should contact Add Health, Carolina Popula-tion Center, 123 W. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516–2524 ૝h;êlt;&#xh@un;.ed;&#xu000;ect support for this analysis was re-ceived from grant P01-HD31921. Author contact: SRH_kaestle.indd 39 2/24/09 10:18:58 AM