Do Men and Women Differ in their Perceptions of Women’s and Men’s Saying “No” When They Mean “Yes” to Sex?: An Examination Between and Within Gender

被引：9

作者：

Emmers-Sommer T.M. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Department of Communication Studies, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV

来源：

Sexuality & Culture | 2016年 / 20卷 / 2期

关键词：

Gender; Sexual scripts; Token resistance;

D O I：

10.1007/s12119-015-9330-1

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

The current study examines men’s and women’s perceptions of both men’s and women’s use of token resistance in heterosexual relationships. Three hundred and forty (n = 340) individuals (148 men and 191 women) with an average age of 21.31 years (SD = 4.11) served as participants in an online study at a large, southwestern university. Results indicate that men perceive both men and women as using token resistance more than women do. Specifically, when examining a traditional sexual script in which the man is the sexually proactive partner and the woman is perceived as exercising token resistance, men believe that women engage in token resistance more than women do. In the scenario in which the woman is the sexually proactive partner and the man is the token resistant party, men perceive men using token resistance more than women do. Within gender, men perceive men using token resistance more than women do. Findings are discussed within the context of sexual script theory and the traditional sexual script. © 2015, Springer Science+Business Media New York.

引用

页码：373 / 385

页数：12

共 27 条

[1]

Abelson R.P., Psychological status of the script concept, American Psychologist, 36, pp. 715-729, (1981)

[2]

Byers E.S., How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program of research, Sexual coercion in dating relationships, pp. 7-26, (1996)

[3]

Emmers-Sommer T.M., Sexual coercion and resistance, Interpersonal communication: Advances in meta-analysis, pp. 315-343, (2002)

[4]

Emmers-Sommer T.M., An examination of gender of aggressor and target (un)wanted sex and nonconsent on perceptions of sexual (un)wantedness, justifiability and consent, Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 12, pp. 280-289, (2015)

[5]

Emmers-Sommer T.M., Farrell J., Gentry A., Stevens S., Eckstein J., Battocletti J., Et al., First date sexual expectations, sexual- and gender-related attitudes: The effects of who asked, who paid, date location, and gender, Communication Studies, 61, 3, pp. 339-355, (2010)

[6]

Guerrero L.K., Andersen P.A., Afifi W.A., Close encounters: Communication in relationships, (2013)

[7]

Hynie M., Lydon J.E., Cote S., Wiener S., Relational sexual scripts and women’s condom use: The importance of internalized norms, Journal of Sex Research, 35, pp. 370-380, (1998)

[8]

Krahe B., Scheinberger-Olwig R., Kolpin S., Ambiguous communication of sexual intention as a risk marker of sexual aggression, Sex Roles, 42, pp. 313-337, (2000)

[9]

Metts S., Spitzberg B.H., Sexual communication in interpersonal contexts: A script-based approach, Communication yearbook 19, pp. 49-91, (1996)

[10]

Mills C.S., Granoff B.J., Date and acquaintance rape among a sample of college students, Journal of the National Association of Social Workers, 37, pp. 504-509, (1992)

← 1 2 3 →