Processes and Patterns in Gay,Lesbian,and Bisexual Sexual Assault

Abstract

Although prior research suggests that sexual minorities are at equivalent or greater risk of sexual assault compared with heterosexual women, few studies have examined simultaneously a broad array of assault types, the forms of force and pressure experienced, and the relative risks of experiencing different kinds of assault or force or pressure during an assault according to sex and sexual orientation. Moreover, very little is known about how subjective interpretations of assault may differ by sex and sexual orientation. We address these gaps using a multimethodological analysis of original survey data (N = 342) with a snowball oversample of sexual minority respondents. Quantitative results indicate that both sexual minority status and sex are predictive of increased assault risk of most assault types, but that most effects of sexual minority status are restricted to men. The probabilities of experiencing verbal pressure or physical force are largely uniform across categories. Qualitative analyses of open-ended questions suggest that men and women interpret the experience of assault differently, such that sexual minority men conceptualize their unwanted sexual experiences as “giving in” due to feelings of guilt or low self-worth, whereas women of all sexual orientations acquiesced because it was perceived to be easier or more practical than resisting. Theoretical implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

sexual assault GLBT male victims anything related to sexual assault

The issue of rape has received considerable media attention of late, prompted in part by a recent revision to the U.S. federal definition of “forcible rape” (Markon, 2012; Savage, 2012). Prior to January, 2012, rape was defined as forcible carnal knowledge of a female against her will and it was limited to penile-vaginal penetration. Forced oral or anal sex was not included in the previous U.S. federal definition, nor was any kind of forcible sexual contact perpetrated against a man, penetration of the vagina or anus with an object, or forced sexual contact by a woman against a woman. In short, women were the only possible victims, men were the only possible perpetrators, and forced vaginal intercourse was the only possible sexual conduct classified as rape. Although clearly inadequate, this definition served as the basis for official U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) statistics on rape for more than 80 years.

Even with the new definition, which includes all of the previously mentioned forms of sexual contact, including male-on-male and female-on-female sexual aggression, many advocates believe that rape will continue to be seen largely as an act perpetrated by men against women (Rabin, 2012). When the new definition was announced, for instance, it was lauded by some as “a big win for women,” rather than a victory for male and female victims alike (Markon, 2012). And when a recent U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report on sexual violence against both men and women was released (Black et al., 2011), many of the associated news headlines focused on the fact that one in five women reported having been raped in their lifetime (Peterson, 2011; Rabin, 2011; Stobbe, 2011). Although the CDC finding that 1 in 71, or 1.4%, of men had been raped did garner some media attention, it was rarely the lead story.

The focus on women as victims does, perhaps, make sense at some level—when reported victimization rates for men are below 2% and rates for women are close to 20%, the gender difference is significant and meaningful. Couple this focus on women with the fact that most victims of rape report a male aggressor and it is perhaps not surprising that heterosexuality is also a taken-for-granted factor in the experience of rape. Most research on sexual assault fails to account for the influence of sexual orientation on the risk of rape. For instance, despite the comprehensive nature of the recent CDC study, which included an examination of sexual violence by perpetrator type (stranger, acquaintance, authority figure, etc.), biological sex, race, ethnicity, age, and relationship with other forms of intimate partner violence, including stalking and physical abuse, sexual orientation was not considered (Black et al., 2011). This kind of oversight means that even the CDC study, which is one of the most comprehensive U.S. studies to date, falls short of offering a complete picture of sexual violence.

Research that does problematize sexual orientation, rather than assuming a heterosexual frame of reference, finds that gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals experience higher rates of rape than do heterosexual women (and men). Moreover, the type and degree of assault vary by sexual orientation (Balsam, Beauchaine, & Rothblum, 2005). What we do not yet know, however, is why sexual orientation matters. Most research has focused on establishing that sexuality is important, but few studies have attempted to discern how sexual orientation impacts one’s experience of assault. The research presented here attempts to provide a detailed account of the patterns and processes of sexual assault among gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals relative to heterosexual women and men. Importantly, it does so through a mixed methods approach—we use both quantitative and qualitative data in an effort to construct preliminary explanations for how the patterns of assault vary by sex and sexual orientation.

Current Understandings of Sexual Assault

The U.S. CDC’s recent study suggests that nearly 20% of all women have experienced rape, defined in that report as forcibly completed or attempted vaginal, oral, or anal penetration. The study also finds that 13% of women have experienced sexual coercion, defined as unwanted sexual penetration after being verbally, but not physically, pressured to engage in sex, and nearly 30% of women have experienced unwanted sexual contact, which involves sexual touching, such as kissing or fondling, without penetration (Black et al., 2011). These figures are similar to other studies on rape and sexual aggression, many of which have focused predominantly on college-aged populations. For instance, rates of rape on college campuses are commonly reported to be between 15% and 25% of the female student population, while rates of sexual coercion and unwanted sexual contact are near 11% and 27%, respectively (Brener, McMahon, Warren, & Douglas, 1999; Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987; Romeo, 2004). Considered jointly, then, overall rates of unwanted sexual experiences among college-aged women range between 26% and 52% of female students. Although less frequently studied, rates of unwanted sexual experiences for college-aged men have been reported to be between 16% and 24% of male students (Lottes, 1991; O’Sullivan, Byers, & Finkelman, 1998; Struckman-Johnson, 1988; Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson, & Anderson, 2003; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2001). Sexual coercion, then, is a problem for both male and female students, although rates remain considerably higher for college women.

Studies suggest that the high risk of rape faced by college students, especially women, may be due to college party culture and the degree to which men, especially those associated with fraternities, control that party atmosphere (Armstrong, Hamilton, & Sweeny, 2006; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2001). It has also been suggested that gendered norms promoting niceness and deference in women interact with sexual scripts that confound seduction and acquaintance rape, thereby making it difficult for women to resist the pressure for sex or difficult for them to recognize a sexual encounter that qualifies as rape once it has occurred (Armstrong et al., 2006; Edwards et al., 2011; Ryan, 2011). Couple this with the rampant alcohol abuse that occurs on college campuses, the relative insensitivity of students to the dangers posed by heavy alcohol consumption and other danger signs at parties, and the well-documented link between alcohol use and rape, it is clear that college students, especially college women, are at great risk of sexual assault (Abbey, McAuslan, & Ross, 1998; Abbey et al., 2002; Gidycz et al., 2007; Menning, 2009; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2001; Ullman, Karabatsos, & Koss, 1999).

While these studies are important and they provide insight into the risk factors associated with and the prevalence of sexual assault, none examine how and under what conditions sexual orientation might influence one’s risk of and experiences with rape. In short, these studies do not problematize sexual orientation; instead they assume heterosexuality or, at the very least, they assume that sexual assaults among gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are similar to those experienced by heterosexual women. However, this may not be true. Research that does account for sexual orientation, much of which has been conducted with lesbian respondents, suggests sexual minority students are at a higher risk of sexual assault than are heterosexual students (Duncan, 1990; Martin, Fisher, Warner, Krebs, & Lindquist, 2011; Rothman & Silverman, 2007). For instance, Martin et al. (2011) found that lesbian and bisexual women have a higher prevalence of sexual assault both before and during their years in college than do heterosexual women. And, despite the fact that some scholars postulate that lesbians should be at a lower risk of sexual assault than heterosexual women because they spend less time with men (Descamps, Rothblum, Bradford, & Ryan, 2000), research generally finds that lesbians have the same or higher risk of assault across the life course (Balsam et al., 2005; Hughes, Johnson, & Wilsnack, 2001; Waldner-Haugrud & Gratch, 1997).

The research focusing on lesbians is important because it accounts for sexual orientation, but lesbians are not the only individuals at risk of rape. Gay men and bisexual men and women face the risk of assault as well, but fewer studies examine sexual aggression within these populations. This is likely true, in part, because sexual violence against men often goes unreported (Scarce, 1997; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2001). Moreover, Scarce (1997) argued that both the dearth of scholarly inquiry into male sexual assault and the issue of underreporting are consequences of larger societal factors that stigmatize homosexuality. These stigmas not only operate to shame, embarrass, and ultimately silence male rape victims, but they also promote a cultural climate where the assault of men is treated as either a “freak occurrence” or as something that elicits “the same disgust and hatred as homosexuality” (pp. 9-10). Consequently, sexual assaults perpetrated against men garner less research and policy attention.

According to Balsam et al. (2005), however, both sex and sexual orientation are important factors in determining one’s relative risk for victimization. Sex and sexuality interact with one another to determine the degree and type of risk one faces, and this is especially true for gay men. Male victims of sexual assault are more likely than females to experience forced anal or oral sex and to have multiple attackers (Stermac, Del Bove, & Addison, 2004). Gay men are also at much greater risk of assault than their heterosexual male counterparts. One study finds that 1.6% of heterosexual men report having been raped—a number that is on par with the recent CDC report—while 11.6% of gay men and 13.2% of bisexual men report having been raped (Balsam et al., 2005; see also Hickson et al., 1994, and Waterman, Dawson, & Bologna, 1989). These findings caused the researchers to conclude that “for men, even more so than women, a sexual minority orientation is associated with higher rates of sexual victimization” (Balsam et al., 2005, p. 484).

It seems clear, then, that accounting for sexual orientation is important for sexual assault research because gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are at increased risk of experiencing an assault. In what ways, however, is sexual orientation important? While research has established that the risk and prevalence of assault varies by sexual orientation, studies generally have not attempted to determine how sexual orientation impacts the experience of assault. Existing studies are largely quantitative and therefore suited to comparing rates of assault by biological sex, sexual orientation, type of perpetrator, mode of assault, and so forth. These types of studies do not, however, lend themselves to an exploration of how sexual orientation may influence the process of assault. This research takes a first step toward addressing this issue by combining quantitative and qualitative data on experiences of assault for heterosexual men and women as well as gay men, lesbians, and bisexual men and women. The quantitative data allow us to examine how biological sex and sexual orientation are associated with different types of assaults, as well as different kinds of pressure and force, while the qualitative data allow us to explore the way sexual assaults tend to unfold. When we consider these data in tandem, we find that not only does the probability of being assaulted in different ways vary by sex and sexuality, but the process through which assaults unfold appears to differ according to these traits as well.

Data and Method

Invitations to participate in a secure online survey were distributed via email to students at a moderately sized Midwestern university. Participants were asked in the email invitation to pass along information about the survey to those in the gay, lesbian, and bisexual community to produce a snowball oversample of these individuals. The survey data are, therefore, composed of both student and community member responses. The survey asked respondents to report on several demographic variables, to answer questions about the type and frequency of unwanted sexual experiences, and to describe both the precursors to and immediate aftereffects of their most recent unwanted sexual experience. Questions about unwanted sexual activity were modeled after Koss et al.’s (1987) Sexual Experiences Survey. As such, the survey asks about more than just “rape”; instead, it focuses on a variety of unwanted sexual experiences, including sexual contact, oral sex, attempted intercourse, and completed intercourse, and it asks respondents to report on the level and degree of pressure and force they experienced. For our purposes, any reported unwanted sexual activity, regardless of the degree of pressure or force that was exerted on the respondent, is classified as a sexual assault.

The resulting data set contains records for 381 individuals, of whom 199 had experienced some form of unwanted sexual activity. From these data, we present quantitative findings that compare assault experiences by sex and sexual orientation and qualitative findings that offer a preliminary picture of the way assaults unfold and how that process differs by sex and sexual orientation. The sample size for the quantitative models predicting unwanted sexual activity ranges from 333 to 342 depending on the number of cases excluded due to ineligibility (see below) or missing information on independent, dependent, or control measures. For quantitative models predicting pressure and force during assault, the sample is restricted to eligible respondents who experienced an assault and for whom complete information is available for all variables used in those analyses (n = 195). The qualitative findings are based on 137 individuals who had experienced an assault and who responded to the open-ended questions on the survey. Descriptive statistics for all variables can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

Variable	n	M	SD	Minimum	Maximum
Unwanted sexual contact	349	0.418	0.494	0	1
Unwanted oral sex	345	0.238	0.426	0	1
Unwanted attempted intercourse	340	0.376	0.485	0	1
Unwanted intercourse	340	0.274	0.446	0	1
Pressured during assault	199	0.804	0.398	0	1
Forced during assault	199	0.638	0.482	0	1
Female	381	0.564	0.496	0	1
Heterosexual	381	0.396	0.49	0	1
Bisexual	381	0.234	0.424	0	1
Homosexual	381	0.268	0.443	0	1
Non-White	381	0.102	0.304	0	1
Hispanic	348	0.057	0.233	0	1
Age	377	22.595	6.83	18	65

Dependent Variables for the Quantitative Models

Unwanted sexual contact

Respondents were asked if they had ever had sexual contact (defined in the survey as fondling, kissing, or petting) when they did not want to (yes = 1).

Unwanted oral sex

Respondents were asked if they had ever engaged in oral sex (defined in the survey as contact between a person’s mouth and another’s genitals or anus) when they did not want to (yes = 1).

Unwanted attempted intercourse

Respondents were asked if they had ever had someone attempt and fail to engage in sexual intercourse (defined in the survey as penetration of the vagina or anus with a penis or other object) when they did not want to (yes = 1).

Unwanted intercourse

Respondents were asked if they had ever had someone engage them in sexual intercourse when they did not want to (yes = 1).

Pressured during assault

Those who experienced any of the aforementioned assaults were asked if they were pressured or someone argued with them, if they were verbally threatened, or if someone used a position of authority in the process of the assault (affirmative to any of these questions = 1).

Forced during assault

Those who experienced any of the aforementioned assaults were also asked if the person used physical force or gave them alcohol or drugs in the process of the assault (affirmative to any of these questions = 1).

Independent and Control Variables for the Quantitative Models

Biological sex is treated as a binary variable in our analyses (female = 1). Sexual orientation is coded into three binary variables from an original seven-category Kinsey scale measure. Those who identified as exclusively or predominantly heterosexual and only incidentally homosexual are coded as heterosexual. Those who identified as (a) predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual, or (b) equally heterosexual and homosexual, or (c) predominantly homosexual but more than incidentally heterosexual were coded as bisexual. Those who identified as exclusively or predominantly homosexual and only incidentally heterosexual were coded as homosexual.

Other variables, such as gender identity, were included in preliminary analyses but were not found to be significant in any model. Similarly, the numbers of self-identified transsexual, androgynous, or other sexual identity (n = 7) and asexual or other sexual orientation (n = 9) cases in the data set are too low to yield reliable estimates for those groups and are thus not included in our analyses. All models include statistical controls for race (non-White = 1), ethnicity (Hispanic = 1), and age.

Modeling Strategy for the Quantitative Models

A series of binary regression models was constructed to predict the odds that respondents experienced unwanted sexual contact, unwanted oral sex, unwanted attempted intercourse, and unwanted completed intercourse. For each of these dependent variables, a model was run on the pooled sample (males and females together), and then on men and women separately. This allows us to distinguish overall patterns on the basis of sex as well as to illustrate clearly the effects of sexual orientation within the male subsample and within the female subsample independently (i.e., rather than assuming that sexual orientation effects are similar for men and for women). Results are presented as odds ratios, exp(β), to aid with interpretation. Odds ratios that are greater than 1 can be said to be “exp(β) times larger” compared with the reference group, whereas odds ratios that are less than 1 can be interpreted as “exp(β) times smaller.” Similarly, odds ratios can be interpreted as factor changes or percentage changes for each unit of increase in an independent or control variable. (For example, an odds ratio of 1.05 can be interpreted as a 5% increase in the odds for each unit increase in the independent or control variable in question.) Further information about the interpretation of odds ratios can be found in Long (1997).

Qualitative Data

Respondents were also asked a series of 11 open-ended questions about their most recent unwanted sexual experience. These questions were designed to elicit information about the experience of assault, how it unfolds, and how it impacts a person afterward. Thus, respondents were asked to describe the level and type of verbal and physical pressure or force they experienced, where they were when the assault occurred, the role of alcohol and/or drugs in the assault, the events immediately prior to and leading up to the assault, how they reacted, how they were feeling afterward, what they did immediately after, and whether they discussed the assault with anyone after it happened.

Responses, which ranged from one to five sentences in length, were analyzed using qualitative, interpretive techniques (Creswell, 1998; Denzin & Lincoln, 1998; Morse, 1994). Qualitative analysis is an especially useful technique for uncovering patterns of meaning within open-ended responses. Through several iterations of moving between the data, relevant theory, and our developing sense of the nuances of meaning contained within the data, we were able to discern patterns in the experience of sexual assault. This iterative process, which Creswell (1998) has referred to as the “data analysis spiral,” allows the data, rather than a priori conceptual categories, to guide the analysis. In this way, key concepts and themes are allowed to emerge from the data. With respect to this research, then, we approached the data with general understandings of sexual assault in mind (they often involve alcohol, verbal and physical pressure or force are typically present, etc.), but we did not have predetermined expectations for what we would find; instead, we allowed the central concepts and themes to surface overtime. Through this process, which involved several rounds of reading, coding, rereading, and recoding, our qualitative findings emerged.

Results

Quantitative Comparisons of Types of Assault by Sex and Sexual Orientation

Table 2 shows the effects of sex and sexual orientation on the odds of unwanted sexual contact. Model 1, which includes both males and females, suggests that the odds that women were subject to unwanted sexual contact were more than 2.5 times higher than for men. The results also indicate that sexual orientation was predictive of this outcome, with homosexuals experiencing odds that were over twice those of heterosexuals. However, as the results in Models 2 and 3 of this same table show, the effect of minority sexual orientation was restricted to men: Although neither bisexuality nor homosexuality was predictive of unwanted sexual contact among women (see Model 2), both bisexual and homosexual men experienced odds that were over 3.5 times larger than those experienced by heterosexual men. Of the remaining variables, age was also predictive, with each year of age increasing the odds by about 5%.

Table 2.

Predicted Effects on Odds of Unwanted Sexual Contact.

	(1)	(2)	(3)
Variables	Overall	Females	Males
Female	2.786*** (0.758)
Age	1.041* (0.019)	1.036 (0.033)	1.050* (0.024)
Bisexual	1.369 (0.384)	1.088 (0.352)	3.527* (2.134)
Homosexual	2.269** (0.685)	1.993 (0.862)	3.763* (1.947)
Non-White	0.860 (0.328)	1.156 (0.505)	0.257 (0.245)
Hispanic	1.671 (0.842)	2.936 (2.516)	1.262 (0.931)
Observations	342	207	135

Note. Odds ratios are given with SEs in parentheses.

†

p < .10.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3 presents similar models predicting the odds of unwanted oral sex. Although sex did not predict this outcome in our data overall (Model 4), there was again an effect of sexual orientation, but only among men (Model 6): Although homosexual men did not differ appreciably from heterosexual men in this respect, bisexual men had odds of experiencing unwanted oral sex that were nearly 6 times higher than they were for heterosexual men. Age was again a significant predictor, with each year of age increasing the odds by about 5% to 7%.

Table 3.

Predicted Effects on Odds of Unwanted Oral Sex.

	(4)	(5)	(6)
Variables	Overall	Females	Males
Female	1.623 (0.494)
Age	1.052** (0.019)	1.041 (0.032)	1.069** (0.027)
Bisexual	1.081 (0.340)	0.653 (0.248)	5.901* (4.285)
Homosexual	0.959 (0.329)	0.796 (0.385)	2.844 (1.965)
Non-White	1.005 (0.431)	0.940 (0.464)	1.284 (1.137)
Hispanic	1.413 (0.796)	1.152 (1.028)	0.966 (0.767)
Observations	338	205	133

Note. Odds ratios are given with SEs in parentheses.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The odds of experiencing unwanted attempted intercourse are presented in Table 4. The pooled sample again indicates that women were more likely to experience this outcome overall than were men, with the odds more than 2.5 times higher than those found among the males (Model 7). Although sexual orientation was not a strong predictor of attempted intercourse overall (albeit marginally associated with increased odds of assault among bisexuals and homosexuals), it was significant among men, with the odds being over 4.5 times higher among homosexual men than among heterosexual men in the sample (Model 9). Sexual orientation was not a significant predictor among women for this outcome (Model 8).

Table 4.

Predicted Effects on Odds of Unwanted Attempted Intercourse.

	(7)	(8)	(9)
Variables	Overall	Females	Males
Female	2.760*** (0.771)
Age	1.011 (0.018)	1.015 (0.030)	1.022 (0.026)
Bisexual	1.687^† (0.483)	1.528 (0.497)	3.084 (2.187)
Homosexual	1.737^† (0.536)	0.895 (0.387)	4.790** (2.906)
Non-White	0.805 (0.315)	1.012 (0.439)	0.379 (0.374)
Hispanic	1.422 (0.745)	1.019 (0.825)	1.963 (1.463)
Observations	333	202	131

Note. Odds ratios are given with SEs in parentheses.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 5 explores the relationships among sex, sexual orientation, and completed unwanted intercourse. As might be expected, women in the pooled sample had higher odds of experiencing this outcome, with odds that were more than double those of men in the sample (Model 10). Among men, sexual orientation was a strong predictor, with odds being more than 5 times higher among bisexual men as among heterosexual men and, via a marginal association, more than 3 times higher among homosexual men as among heterosexual men (Model 12). In addition, being older was associated with increased risk. Non-White minority status was marginally associated with increased risk among men as well, whereas being Hispanic was marginally associated with reduced risk.

Table 5.

Predicted Effects on Odds of Unwanted Completed Intercourse.

	(10)	(11)	(12)
Variables	Overall	Females	Males
Female	2.298** (0.705)
Age	1.057** (0.020)	1.050 (0.032)	1.076** (0.028)
Bisexual	1.306 (0.396)	0.990 (0.341)	5.079* (3.916)
Homosexual	1.065 (0.361)	0.764 (0.358)	3.446^† (2.481)
Non-White	1.459 (0.588)	1.052 (0.482)	5.965^† (5.658)
Hispanic	0.565 (0.360)	0.860 (0.759)	0.151^† (0.171)
Observations	333	202	131

Note. Odds ratios are given with SEs in parentheses.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

It appears, then, that biological sex and sexual orientation do impact one’s experience with sexual assault. Women, regardless of orientation, were significantly more likely to experience unwanted sexual contact, attempted intercourse, and completed rape than were men. This finding is consistent with prior research and societal understandings of sexual assault as largely a women’s issue. When sexual orientation was considered, however, some interesting differences emerged. Sexual minority status mattered for the experience of unwanted sexual contact and attempted rape—homosexual and/or bisexual individuals were at greater risk of these types of assault than were heterosexual individuals. However, much of this association seems to be limited to males. When we considered the effects of sexual orientation by biological sex, no differences emerged for women—bisexual and lesbian women were as likely as heterosexual women to experience an assault. Bisexual and gay men, however, were significantly more likely than heterosexual men to experience unwanted sexual contact and completed rapes, bisexual men were at greater risk of unwanted oral sex, and gay men were much more likely to face an attempted rape. In short, sexuality was an important predictor of risk for men and it influenced the kinds of assaults they were apt to experience.

These findings are important because they underscore the variations in sexual assault that are associated with sex and sexual orientation. Although one segment of the literature has found that gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals face higher rates of assault than heterosexual women (Duncan, 1990; Martin et al., 2011; Rothman & Silverman, 2007) and another segment has examined rates and types of assault for women, irrespective of sexual orientation (Brener et al., 1999; Fisher et al., 2000; Koss et al., 1987; Romeo, 2004), fewer studies have looked at these things simultaneously (Balsam et al., 2005). Consequently, we know a great deal about the kinds of assaults that women face and we know with some confidence that homosexual and bisexual individuals are at higher risk of assault, but we do not know much about the types of assaults that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals face, and how sexual orientation may impact their experience of assault. The remaining quantitative data on pressure and force, coupled with the qualitative data on the experience of assault, begin to fill this gap.

Quantitative Comparisons of Pressure and Force by Sex and Sexual Orientation

For those who had experienced any of these unwanted sexual acts, we explored whether there were variations in the application of pressure and force by sex and sexual orientation. The models in Tables 6 and 7 address this question. The odds of reporting verbal pressure during any attempted or completed unwanted sexual act are predicted in Table 6. Overall (Model 13) and among women (Model 14), bisexuality increased the risk of experiencing pressure. We note, however, that the odds of experiencing pressure during an attempted or completed sexual assault were high overall (~80%), and we conclude that it is a common feature of assaults in general. The presence of force, although somewhat less common, was also rather uniform (see Table 7). Older respondents were more likely to report that at least one of their experiences included force; Latinas were less likely. Otherwise, there was no significant variation according to sex or sexual orientation for this outcome.

Table 6.

Predicted Effects on Odds of Pressure During Assault.

	(13)	(14)	(15)
Variables	Overall	Females	Males
Female	1.332 (0.621)
Age	1.026 (0.035)	0.998 (0.049)	1.121 (0.086)
Bisexual	3.654* (2.158)	5.196* (4.089)	3.958 (4.506)
Homosexual	1.245 (0.594)	0.610 (0.360)	3.997 (3.373)
Non-White	0.679 (0.380)	1.753 (1.355)	0.127^† (0.139)
Hispanic	0.671 (0.458)	0.555 (0.541)	0.401 (0.445)
Observations	195	135	60

Note. Odds ratios are given with SEs in parentheses.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 7.

Predicted Effects on Odds of Force During Assault.

	(16)	(17)	(18)
Variables	Overall	Females	Males
Female	1.550 (0.616)
Age	1.087* (0.040)	1.096 (0.069)	1.092^† (0.055)
Bisexual	1.552 (0.638)	1.284 (0.593)	4.383 (4.363)
Homosexual	1.057 (0.444)	0.616 (0.341)	2.989 (2.356)
Non-White	0.645 (0.315)	0.979 (0.596)	0.389 (0.393)
Hispanic	0.253* (0.166)	0.087* (0.099)	0.538 (0.510)
Observations	195	135	60

Note. Odds ratios are given with SEs in parentheses.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The level of uniformity in the use of pressure and force is not surprising—research on the tactics assailants use to gain sex suggests that verbal pressure and the use of alcohol and drugs are common techniques (Gidycz, Warkentin, Orchowski, & Edwards, 2011; Struckman-Johnson et al., 2003). This fact, coupled with the lack of differences by sex and sexual orientation that we find here, might suggest that sex and sexual orientation are irrelevant to the experience of coercive pressures—in other words, coercion, in some form, is a ubiquitous feature of unwanted sexual experiences, regardless of one’s sex or sexuality. The qualitative data, however, suggest that the story is more complex. Although individuals commonly face pressure for sex, the way they react to that pressure appears to differ by sex and sexual orientation, especially for gay and bisexual men.

Qualitative Analysis of the Process of Assault

The quantitative data offer insights into some aspects of sexual assault, but a more complete understanding of assault requires an examination of more than just the type of assault and the kind of pressure one faces. Exploring the way an assault unfolds can reveal a great deal about the process of sexual aggression, the patterns of behavior that may be involved, and the ways in which individuals make sense of the experience. The qualitative data allowed us to examine these kinds of issues.

One of the first things to note is that the precursors to assault were very similar across groups. Nearly half of the respondents reported that they, their assailant, or both were under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the assault, and 37% reported that in the hour preceding the assault, they were drinking at home, at a party, or in a bar. Importantly, although many individuals’ initial encounter with their aggressor began in a public space, the vast majority of the assaults (70%) took place in private bedrooms. In many cases, then, individuals retreated from a party to a private room elsewhere in the house or they left the location altogether and went to their own or the assailant’s home.

Once alone, aggressors used a variety of tactics to engage individuals in sexual acts. Some badgered the person or begged until he or she relented. As one heterosexual female noted, “I really did not want to [give him oral sex] but he was relentless.” A bisexual female reported that her boyfriend “just kept bugging and bugging me until it was easier to have sex than say no,” and a bisexual male said “[There was] a lot of whining and annoying begging. [He claimed] I was causing him physical pain due to ‘blue balls.’”

Others used bribes, persuasion, and the threat of withdrawing their love. A heterosexual female said, “He told me he would go somewhere I wanted him to go if I gave him oral sex,” and a bisexual female said, “I was in a relationship at the time. He threatened to break up with me.” At times the persuasion was coupled with inducements of guilt. A bisexual female reported that her boyfriend claimed that sex was “the ‘right’ way to express [her] feelings toward him” and another noted that “He said he loved me and if I loved him, I would have sex with him.” In the most extreme cases, aggressors threatened to reveal the person’s homosexuality or to harm their reputation in other ways—for instance, a gay male said that his assailant threatened “to say I raped him.”

Physical threats and force were used as well, sometimes from the outset of the interaction and sometimes because verbal tactics had failed. Thus, it was common for women of all sexual orientations and gay or bisexual men (but not heterosexual men) to report being “pushed,” “held down,” “physically restrained,” “slapped,” “punched,” and forcibly “prevented from leaving.” Some of these interactions were incredibly violent. A gay male said that he received a “savage beating,” another said he was “beaten, had [his] arm broken, and [his] sternum fractured,” and another faced “asphyxiation [and] a knife to the throat.” A heterosexual woman said that when she refused her boyfriend’s requests for sex, he physically restrained her, put his “hand over [her] mouth to stop the screaming, [threw] her on the bed when [she] tried to run away,” and then “pulled her legs apart” in an attempt to force penetration. A bisexual female said that her assailant—someone who had raped her previously—kidnapped her, drove her to a motel, threatened to kill her, and then raped her.

The kinds of verbal pressure and physical force that individuals faced generally did not vary by sex or sexual orientation, with one exception: Heterosexual men never reported facing physical force. This does not mean that heterosexual men do not face physical threats; rather, it means that within our qualitative data, the most recent unwanted sexual experiences faced by the heterosexual men who answered the open-ended questions involved verbal pressures only. Thus, beyond this caveat for heterosexual men, the qualitative data reveal no sex and sexual orientation differences in the kinds of pressure and force that were exerted on individuals. This is consistent with the quantitative findings discussed above.

As aggressors pursued their goals for sex, individuals had to determine how best to deal with the relentless requests, the threats of love withdrawal, the physical restraint, and so forth. Some individuals stood their ground verbally and were able to keep things from escalating, others physically fought off their aggressors, and still others screamed to alert those around them that help was needed. While some level of success was possible with each of these forms of resistance, they also failed in many instances and individuals were unable to thwart the unwanted sexual activity. Resisting sexual advances in these ways was not, however, the primary response for all of the people in the qualitative sample—nearly one quarter responded by acquiescing; that is, they gave in to the requests even though it was not what they wanted to do. More specifically, 18% of heterosexual women, 13% of lesbians, and 26% of bisexual women reported that they eventually acquiesced. Likewise, 42% of gay men and 40% of bisexual men gave in to unwanted sexual acts. No heterosexual men discussed giving in as a reason for their assault.

The disproportionate number of gay and bisexual men who gave in to unwanted sexual activities is noteworthy, as is the rationale they offered for their decision to acquiesce. Gay and bisexual men were much more likely to say that they gave in because they felt guilty. For instance, a bisexual male described his feelings of guilt in this way:

[I] kept saying, “Stop, I don’t want to do this,” but I felt pressured into it, because I did volunteer to do it, and I felt incredibly bad wanting to stop. They both assured me things would get better, and they were enjoying themselves because of it.

A gay male reported giving in to multiple verbal requests because the aggressor had paid for ice cream and a movie earlier in the day: “When he paid for everything I felt that I owed him at least a make out but I watched the clock the whole time. He wanted to go further but I said no.” Similarly, another gay man said,

I refused to have the sex, but to settle [him] down I let [him] sleep with me so we could “at least cuddle.” I woke up multiple times to [him] trying to do stuff, but what can you really do when you’re in that situation? It’s easy to say you’d kick them out, but that doesn’t always happen.

Other men gave in not because they felt guilty, but because their own sense of self-worth was so low that they felt they lacked the right to resist. One bisexual man said, “I felt dirty but I also felt I was in my place,” and another said,

I let things happen to me because I’m so easily dominated. I tried to talk them out of it but they kept using persuasion. Eventually I would say nothing because I felt like a worthless dirty whore which makes me feel useful to them.

Similarly, after initially denying the aggressor’s verbal advances, a gay man explained his decision to give in by saying, “I reverted back to a time in my life when I couldn’t say no.” Another bisexual male said of his aggressor that she “threatened to pursue someone I cared about unless I had sex with her. It was the only way to protect my friend.” He then justified his acquiescence by saying, “I was built for hurt. I’m not going to let the ones I care about suffer if I can help. The problem is some people know they can abuse this in me.”

The reported reasons for giving in among gay and bisexual men stand in sharp contrast to the discussions offered by heterosexual, lesbian, and bisexual women. First, women reported giving in much less often than gay and bisexual men. This does not mean that they had fewer unwanted sexual experiences; it just means that they acquiesced in those experiences less often. Second, when they did relent, it was almost never out of feelings of guilt or poor self-worth. Instead, heterosexual and bisexual women said that they gave in simply because it was “easier” than resisting. Thus, it was common for them to say, “I gave in to shut him up,” “I just complied,” “I ignored it until I couldn’t stand it anymore,” “It was easier to have sex than say no,” and “It didn’t seem worth it to resist.”

Thus, sexual minority men seemed to give in out of feelings of guilt or low self-worth, whereas women, regardless of sexual orientation, acquiesced because they found it to be easier than arguing about what they really wanted. It is important to note here that reasons for giving in to unwanted sexual advances are different from feelings after an unwanted sexual experience. Although gay and bisexual men were more apt to cite guilt as a reason for giving in to sex, feelings of guilt and shame were a common experience for many people after an assault, regardless of sex or sexual orientation. Survivors, thus, routinely used words like “guilt,” “shame,” “dirty,” “disgusted,” “self-loathing,” and “embarrassed” to describe how they felt following the assault.

What emerges from these data, then, is a fairly consistent picture about how sexual assaults unfold. For men and women, regardless of sexual orientation, the precursors to sexual assault often involve a night of drinking and the eventual retreat to a private room where pressure for sex is exerted by one person on the other. Individuals deal with these pressures in a variety of ways, but one common response is to eventually give in to the requests for sex. Importantly, although the way one feels about an assault after it has happened is fairly uniform across both sexes and among individuals of various sexual orientations, the experience of giving in to the pressures that set one up for an assault vary markedly by sex and sexual orientation. Recognizing these differences could be very important for scholars and advocates involved with prevention programming as well as counseling services for assault survivors. Because the qualitative data are based on those individuals who answered the open-ended questions and we do not know if their experiences differed markedly from those people who opted not to complete that section of the survey, we must consider these findings preliminary, but they are, nonetheless, important and, when considered in tandem with the quantitative data, provocative. In the “Conclusion” section, we explore the potential implications of these findings.

Conclusion

The overall risks of sexual assault vary by both sex and sexual orientation, and there are also important variations in how these groups experience assault. Such variations are not only limited to the objective acts of assault (e.g., sexual contact, vs. oral sex, vs. intercourse) but also encompass the subjective: Even though the situations in which assaults occur are very similar across groups and the risks of facing pressure and force may appear relatively uniform, these forces may be experienced and interpreted in ways that are qualitatively different.

The salience of “giving in,” of self-blame, of guilt over “allowing” situations to progress to assault among sexual minority men is particularly telling. Not only is this theme consistent with work detailing the outcomes for male survivors of anal rape (Walker, Archer, & Davies, 2005), but the corresponding dearth of such language in reports given by females in our data also suggests that gendered expectations of power may color interpretations of sexual assault. Male victims may be more likely to cope with assault by asserting that something they did was responsible for the assault, thus reclaiming a sense of power and control over their worlds—and thus a facet of their masculinity. Paradoxically, however, such an approach is detrimental to survivors, as self-blame impedes recovery (Frazier & Schauben, 1994) and raises the risk of revictimization (Miller, Markman, & Handley, 2007). It may be that mechanisms such as these, in conjunction with additional psychological and larger structural forces, are responsible for the greater vulnerability and higher rates of victimization overall for sexual minorities.

The degree of commonality across the ways in which assault plays out for women of all groups and sexual minority men emphasizes the importance of recognizing the larger structural forces that simultaneously affect women and sexual minority men, and perhaps for common reasons. For example, Pharr (1997) argued that sexism and homophobia are related not only as a means of subordinating women and sexual minority men to heterosexual men, but as a means of threatening total disenfranchisement from the power-granting and protective institutions of society for those who threaten the hegemony of male heterosexual economic power by stepping outside of their proscribed gender roles. Through rape and its aftermath of guilt, shame, self-blame, and barriers to reporting, women are thus constrained to their roles as objects of male gratification, and sexual minority males are punished for betraying scripts of masculinity. It is thus critical that future work explore not only variations in how these groups experience sexual assault, but delve deeper into the underlying commonalities in the contexts, objective events, and subjective responses to sexual assault.

Future work may also seek to address the limitations of this study. Although the sample used herein is sizable and some of our findings are generally consistent with those found elsewhere on rates of assault (e.g., Balsam et al., 2005; Martin et al., 2011), it was not possible to collect a probability-based sample. We therefore caution that our findings may not hold true for the general population of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual men and women. Moreover, not all respondents who reported experiencing an assault gave qualitative accounts of their experiences or gave full quantitative information about their experiences. If there are patterns in these missing data, it is possible that important phenomena have been missed in our report. Finally, we have very little information on assaults of heterosexual men, in part because it appears to be rare and it is difficult to generalize from the small numbers in our sample, and perhaps also because there are strong norms among heterosexual males not to report sexual victimization.

Even with these limitations in mind, this study takes an important step toward furthering our understanding of how sexual assault differs by sex and sexual orientation. By utilizing a multimethodological approach, we are able to offer a more detailed picture of how rates, types, and experiences of sexual assault vary for heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual men and women. Our findings highlight important differences between these groups while also drawing attention to the often-overlooked experiences of gay and bisexual men specifically. Perhaps, then, this research can serve as a catalyst for additional work, policy initiatives, and programming efforts that seek to understand and combat sexual assault in all its forms and facets, rather than simply as a problem faced by heterosexual women.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the participants of the spring 2011 Virginia Ball Center seminar and staff of the Virginia Ball Center for Creative Inquiry for their input and generous support for this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Chadwick L. Menning is an associate professor of sociology at Ball State University. His research interests are centered on young adult safety and well-being. He has published works in Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, and Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health.

Mellisa Holtzman is an associate professor of sociology at Ball State University. She specializes in sociology of the family and family law. Her recent work has examined the custody rights of nonbiological gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer (GLBTQ) parents. Her publications include articles in Law and Social Inquiry, Family Court Review, Family Relations, and Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health.

References

Abbey

McAuslan

Ross

(1998). Sexual assault perpetration by college men: The role of alcohol, misperception of sexual intent, and sexual beliefs and experiences. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 17, 167-195.

Abbey

Zawacki

Buck

Testa

Parks

Norris

. . .Martell

(2002). How does alcohol contribute to sexual assault? Explanations from laboratory and survey data. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 26, 575-581.

Armstrong

Hamilton

Sweeny

(2006). Sexual assault on campus: A multilevel integrative approach to party rape. Social Problems, 53, 483-499.

Balsam

Beauchaine

Rothblum

(2005). Victimization over the life span: A comparison of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual siblings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 477-487.

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

. . .Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Brener

McMahon

Warren

Douglas

(1999). Forced sexual intercourse and associated health-risk behaviors among female college students in the United States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 252-259.

Creswell

(1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin

Lincoln

(1998). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Descamps

Rothblum

Bradford

Ryan

(2000). Mental health impact of child sexual abuse, rape, intimate partner violence, and hate crimes in the National Lesbian Health Care Survey. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 11, 27-55.

10.

Duncan

(1990). Prevalence of sexual assault victimization among heterosexual and gay/lesbian university students. Psychological Reports, 66, 65-66.

11.

Edwards

Turchik

Dardis

Reynolds

Gidycz

(2011). Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence, and implications for change. Sex Roles, 65, 761-773.

12.

Fisher

Cullen

Turner

(2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

13.

Frazier

P. A.

Schauben

(1994). Causal attributions and recovery from rape and other stressful life events. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 13, 1-14.

14.

Gidycz

Loh

Lobo

Rich

Lynn

Pashdag

(2007). Reciprocal relationships among alcohol use, risk perception, and sexual victimization: A prospective analysis. Journal of American College Health, 56, 5-14.

15.

Gidycz

Warkentin

Orchowski

Edwards

(2011). College men’s perceived likelihood to perpetrate sexual aggression. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 20, 260-279.

16.

Hickson

Davies

Hunt

Weatherburn

McManus

Coxon

(1994). Gay men as victims of nonconsensual sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 281-294.

17.

Hughes

Johnson

Wilsnack

(2001). Sexual assault and alcohol abuse: A comparison of lesbians and heterosexual women. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13, 515-532.

18.

Koss

Gidycz

Wisniewski

(1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170.

19.

Long

(1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Lottes

(1991). The relationship between nontraditional gender riles and sexual coercion. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 4, 89-109.

21.

Markon

(2012, January 6). Justice Dept. expands definition of rape to include other forms of sexual assault. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-dept-expands-definition-of-rape-to-include-other-forms-of-sexual-assault/2012/01/06/gIQAbM7CfP_story.html

22.

Martin

Fisher

Warner

Krebs

Lindquist

(2011). Women’s sexual orientation and their experiences of sexual assault before and during university. Women’s Health Issues, 21, 199-205.

23.

Menning

(2009). Unsafe at any house? Attendees’ perceptions of microlevel environmental traits and personal safety at fraternity and nonfraternity parties. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1714-1734.

24.

Miller

A. K.

Markman

K. D.

Handley

I. M.

(2007). Self-blame among sexual assault victims prospectively predicts revictimization: A perceived sociolegal context model of risk. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 129-136.

25.

Morse

(1994). Critical issues in qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

O’Sullivan

Byers

Finkelman

(1998). A comparison of male and female college students’ experiences of sexual coercion. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 177-195.

27.

Peterson

(2011, December 14). Almost 1 in 5 women in U.S. have been sexually assaulted, CDC reports. Bloomberg. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-14/almost-1-in-5-u-s-women-have-been-sexually-assaulted-cdc-says.html

28.

Pharr

(1997). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism (Exp. ed.). Berkeley, CA: Chardon Press.

29.

Rabin

R. C.

(2011, December 14). Nearly 1 in 5 women in U.S. survey say they have been sexually assaulted. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-survey-report-sexual-assault.html?_r=1

30.

Rabin

R. C.

(2012, January 23). As victims, men struggle for rape awareness. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/health/as-victims-men-struggle-for-rape-awareness.html?pagewanted=all

31.

Romeo

(2004). Acquaintance rape on college and university campuses. College Student Journal, 38, 61-65.

32.

Rothman

Silverman

(2007). The effect of a college sexual assault prevention program on first year students’ victimization rates. Journal of American College Health, 55, 283-290.

33.

Ryan

(2011). The relationship between rape myths and sexual scripts: The social construction of rape. Sex Roles, 65, 774-782.

34.

Savage

(2012, January 6). U.S. to expand its definition of rape in statistics. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/politics/federal-crime-statistics-to-expand-rape-definition.html

35.

Scarce

(1997). Male on male rape: The hidden toll of stigma and shame. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

36.

Stermac

Del Bove

Addison

(2004). Stranger and acquaintance sexual assault of adult males. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 901-915.

37.

Stobbe

(2011, December 14). Report: 1 in 5 women has been sexually assaulted. Associated Press. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45671216/ns/health-womens_health/t/report-women-has-been-sexually-assaulted/#.UBqeAaB2OHg

38.

Struckman-Johnson

(1988). Forced sex on dates: It happens to men, too. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 234-241.

39.

Struckman-Johnson

Anderson

(2003). Tactics of sexual coercion: When men and women won’t take no for an answer. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 76-86.

40.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

(2001). Lifestyle factors associated with the sexual assault of men: A routine activity theory analysis. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 9, 153-182.

41.

Ullman

Karabatsos

Koss

(1999). Alcohol and sexual assault in a national sample of college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 603-625.

42.

Waldner-Haugrud

Gratch

(1997). Sexual coercion in gay/lesbian relationships: Descriptives and gender differences. Victims and Victimology, 12, 87-98.

43.

Walker

Archer

Davies

(2005). Effects of rape on men: A descriptive analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 69-80.

44.

Waterman

Dawson

Bologna

(1989). Sexual coercion in gay male and lesbian relationships: Predictors and implications for support services. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 118-124.