Reexamining Issues of Conceptualization and Willing Consent

Abstract

This study problematizes the literature’s conceptualization of sexual compliance, predominantly defined as willing participation in, and consent to, unwanted sexual activity in the absence of immediate partner pressure. Using a feminist theoretical framework, we argue that covert forms of social coercion, including normalized expectations for heterosexual women to participate in sexual activity and maintain relationship satisfaction, ultimately pressure women into participating in unwanted sexual activity. In other words, immediate partner pressure is not necessary for a sexually coercive experience to occur. Results of the current study indicate that relationship control and media influence significantly predict sexual acquiescence, and women acquiesce to unwanted sexual activity in an effort to maintain relationships and partner satisfaction as well as to avoid negative outcomes. Women cite various forms of social coercion, such as fulfilling sexual scripts and relationship obligations, as primary reasons for participating in unwanted sexual activity without resisting their partners.

Keywords

sexual acquiescence sexual coercion social coercion sexual violence

Introduction

Most of the literature on unwanted sexual activity has focused on three aspects of sexual coercion (threatened physical coercion, physical coercion, and interpersonal coercion) and has largely overlooked the role of social coercion in unwanted sexual activity. According to Finkelhor and Yllo (1985), physical coercion is the actual use of force to obtain sexual activity, such as restraining or beating one’s partner, whereas threatened physical coercion refers to explicit threats of using physical force or violence to obtain sex. Interpersonal coercion includes nonphysically threatening, manipulative or controlling actions by one’s partner in an attempt to solicit sexual activity. Finally, Finkelhor and Yllo (1985) also consider the role of social coercion in unwanted sexual activity. Social coercion is conceptualized as the pressure to adhere to sex role obligations by individuals in an intimate relationship given the social and cultural expectations of their sexual roles. Social coercion is not overt or readily visible, but the pressure to meet certain sexual obligations and fulfill societal roles is ever-present.

Ideally, sexual activity should only take place with the mutual consent of the individuals involved, motivated by shared sexual desire. However, men and women participate in undesired sexual activity for a variety of reasons, and they may even give explicit consent when engaging in sexual activity against their will. For example, Morgan, Johnson, and Sigler (2006) conceptualized three distinctive types of unwanted sexual activity: forced, coerced, and willing. Forced sexual activity was conceptualized as the use of physical force to obtain sexual activity from an unwilling partner, whereas coerced sexual activity was defined as the use of nonphysical force, such as threats or emotional manipulation, to obtain sex from an unwilling partner. The third type of unwanted sexual activity termed “willing unwanted,” and more commonly referred to as sexual compliance in the literature, was conceptualized as a participant’s willing and consensual engagement in unwanted sexual activity, despite their lack of desire for the activity and in the absence of immediate partner pressure (i.e., force or coercion). Similar to Morgan et al.’s (2006) conceptualization, other investigations of unwanted sexual activity (e.g., Impett & Peplau, 2002; Katz & Tirone, 2009; O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998) have conceptualized unwanted sexual activity as having two distinctive dimensions: (1) sexual coercion, or the use of force or coercion to obtain unwanted sexual activity and (2) sexual compliance, or engagement in unwanted sexual activity in the absence of immediate partner pressure. In the research on unwanted sexual activity, sexual coercion has been conceptualized and studied as distinctly different from sexual compliance.

Without considering the role of social coercion in research on unwanted sexual activity, as defined above, sexual activity that takes place in the absence of immediate partner pressure (i.e., threatened physical coercion, physical coercion, and interpersonal coercion to engage in sexual behavior against one’s will) has been termed sexual compliance and defined as willing and consensual, despite one partner’s lack of desire to engage in the sexual activity. Conceptualizing sexual compliance in this way implies that, although the sexual activity is undesired or unwanted by one partner, that individual willingly consents to the sexual activity for reasons other than force or coercion, such as pleasing one’s partner. However, it is likely those individuals may choose to passively participate in or give explicit consent to unwanted sexual activity as a result of social coercion or indirect coercion, something that has not been considered in the sexual compliance literature. In other words, although sexual compliance may take place in the absence of immediate partner pressure or coercion, it should not be assumed that consenting to unwanted sexual activity is not a coercive experience; the role of social coercion must also be considered. Similarly, one must consider that sexual compliance may be a learned response to previous experiences of coercion from one’s past or current partners, or it may be done to avoid potential negative consequences of refusal to engage sexual activity.

Therefore, the purpose of this investigation is to reexamine the widely used conceptualizations and operationalizations of “sexual compliance.” This is done by considering the role of social coercion and past experiences of threatened, physical, and interpersonal coercion in one’s decision to comply with, and consent to, unwanted sexual activity. Furthermore, this article will further examine the role of consent in instances of unwanted sexual activity. Although both men and women engage in unwanted sexual activity, this article focuses on women’s experiences of sexual compliance due to the notably small number of male participants (n = 24) who were dropped from analysis. Furthermore, utilizing an all-female sample is supported by research that suggests women experience higher rates of sexual compliance than their male counterparts, possibly due to gendered sexual scripts that undermine women’s sexual agency (Crawford, Kippax, & Waldby, 1994).

Rethinking Sexual Compliance

The current study challenges the common conceptualization of sexual compliance in the literature, defined as participation in unwanted sexual activity without immediate partner pressure and including “willing consent” or “free consent” in the absence of desire to engage in the activity (Impett & Peplau, 2002; Katz & Tirone, 2010; Morgan et al., 2006; Shotland & Goodstein, 1992; Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2010; Walker, 1997). That is, in much of the literature, the term compliance assumes that consent is given willingly or freely, meaning that consent is given in the absence of coercion. Furthermore, the term sexual compliance also been termed willing acquiescence (Katz & Tirone, 2009), feigning sexual desire or interest (O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998), and willing or passive participation (Morgan et al., 2006). Despite the widely used definition of sexual compliance as willing consent to unwanted sexual activity, the literature’s common conceptualization of sexual compliance is problematic. For example, although authors have defined sexual compliance as “freely consenting” to unwanted activity, findings suggest that assumptions about one’s sexual obligations may have undermined the need for consent in the context of intimate relationships, and that the nonverbal nature of most sexual activity may inhibit expressions of reluctance (Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2010). More specifically, 75% of participants (male and female) in the same study reported that it is unreasonable to assume that both partners will always want to engage in sexual activity at the same time, and 67% of participants believed that their partners were aware that sexual activity was sometimes unwanted. In some cases, participants had verbally expressed to their partners a lack of desire to engage in sexual activity. The fact that couples engage in unwanted sexual activity despite one partner’s lack of desire, and whether they passively participate or explicitly consent, is thought-provoking and problematizes the notion of “freely given” consent. If it is unwanted sexual activity, there needs to be a better understanding of the motives behind why individuals ultimately comply before claims are made about the role of consent in experiences of sexual compliance. For instance, research suggests that promoting partner pleasure and increasing relationship satisfaction are reasons for sexual compliance (O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998). In Basile’s (1999) qualitative study, the most commonly cited (75%) reason for complying with unwanted sex in the absence of immediate partner pressure was the belief that having sex with one’s partner was an inherent responsibility for women. When women engage in unwanted sexual activity because they feel it is their responsibility, the indirect pressure to participate is more appropriately termed social coercion (Finkelhor & Yllo, 1985). In these reported instances of sexual compliance, not expressing nonconsent or lack of resistance have been assumed to mean willing consent, and the influence of social coercion, or covert societal or relationship pressures, has been consistently overlooked in past research.

Sexual compliance has also been linked to experiences of past threatened, physical, and/or interpersonal coercion from one’s current or past partner, which problematizes the notion of “free” or “willing” consent. In fact, 27% of Basile’s (1999) sample indicated that they engaged in unwanted sexual activity as a means of avoiding coercion, and 20% of participants who engaged in unwanted sexual activity did so to avoid physical abuse that they had experienced by their partner when they had previously objected to unwanted sexual activity. Similarly, Katz and Tirone (2010) found that women who experienced past coercion from their partners were 7.25 times more likely to comply with unwanted sex in the future. This suggests the possibility that one may participate in unwanted sexual activity without resistance to avoid or bypass overt coercion that they experienced in the past when they refused to acquiesce to their partners’ requests.

Overall, it appears that women may engage in unwanted sexual activity to avoid a partner’s coercive behavior, or to avoid being emotionally or physically harmed. It is equally important to note, given the social expectations for women in intimate relationships, that women may also engage in unwanted sexual activity in the absence of immediate partner pressure to fulfill social role obligations, with social coercion underlying their reasons for sexual compliance. When women engage in unwanted sexual activity due to social coercion, as a response to past experiences of coercion from their partners, or to avoid negative consequences, the activity should not be defined as willingly consensual. In other words, passive participation or explicit consent may be given in response to more subtle forms of coercion that have not previously been considered in the sexual compliance literature.

Aims of the Current Study

As Basile (1999) suggests, interactions within intimate relationships, primarily heterosexual relationships, are constructed, negotiated, and renegotiated within the context of a power-differentiated, patriarchal society. Furthermore, the definition of consent—and even the sexual activities themselves—“becomes ambiguous when [particularly] women’s consent is given under the societal conditions of dominance and inequality” (Basile, 1999, p. 1054). Therefore, the notion of “willing consent” must be carefully reconsidered, especially in the study of sexual compliance. Is passive participation in unwanted sexual activity truly a consensual sexual experience, particularly if it is preceded by experiences of social coercion or interpersonal coercion? Moreover, if power differentials exist among partners does the subordinated partner feel empowered enough to resist unwanted sexual activity?

Although the common conceptualization of the term sexual compliance suggests that consent is provided and/or that the compliant partner “willingly chooses” to comply without resistance, the implicit assumption that consent is given freely without coercion should be challenged. Lack of resistance to unwanted sexual activity is not assumed to be equated with freely given consent for the purpose of the current study. Acknowledgement is given to the complex social forces that simultaneously shape sexual interactions and influence one’s experience of coercion when engaging in unwanted sexual activity. The term sexual compliance is replaced with sexual acquiescence to mean engaging in unwanted sexual activity without protest—not necessarily a consensual experience free from covert coercion or pressure. In other words, when women succumb to forms of coercion, ranging from the social to the physical, and subsequently consent to unwanted sexual activity, the imposition of pressure on an individual by one’s partner or normative gender-based assumptions about sex in intimate relationships is reframed as coercive sexual activity, not willing sexual activity, for the purpose of this article. Prior research also fails to measure the nature of consent in women’s experiences of sexual acquiescence. Therefore, this study aimed to capture the nature of consent, including measures of passive acquiescence and overt consent.

To empirically test the idea that sexual acquiescence may be the result of social coercion and to examine the role of consent within these interactions, the current study employs a feminist perspective to better understand why women acquiesce to unwanted sexual activity in the absence of immediate partner pressure. Framing research within feminist theory allows for one to appropriately investigate the gendered social context in which intimate relationships develop, including experiences of sexual acquiescence, which has been largely overlooked in the extant literature. According to Walker (1997), individuals internalize societal expectations about sexuality through gender socialization, and therefore, it is imperative to study issues of sexuality as embedded in and learned and reinforced within a patriarchal cultural context.

Heterosexuality and prescriptive gender roles for men and women are embedded in our scripts of how to “do” gender, and these scripts are perpetuated in popular magazines, films, television, literature, and pornography (Gavey, 1992). For instance, Farvid and Braun (2006) found that women’s magazines influenced women’s gendered and sexual identities, including their sexual behaviors in intimate relationships, by reinforcing heteronormative representations of men and women. Other media, such as the internet and television, are also utilized as easily accessible sources of sex education for adolescents (Charmaraman & McKamey, 2011). Similarly, Brown, Halpern, and L’Engle (2005) also found that media are seen as less embarrassing and nonjudgmental sources of information about sexuality as compared to one’s peers or parents. As such, the role of media in women’s experiences of sexual acquiescence is measured in this study.

Central to feminist theory is the acknowledgment of power differentials between men and women, with men holding more social power than women, within and outside of intimate relationships (Smith, Hamon, Ingoldsby, & Miller, 2009). Gavey (1992) has indicated that “male dominance can be maintained in heterosexual practice often in the absence of direct force or violence” (p. 325). To measure power differentials in sexual relationships, the current study will examine two aspects of relationship power: sexual relationship power and decision-making dominance.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: Women who report acquiescence will report higher scores on (partner) relationship control and (partner) decision-making dominance.

Hypothesis 2: Women who report acquiescence (yes/no) will report that they went along with the activity or feigned desire for it (passive acquiescence) more than overtly consenting to the activity.

Hypothesis 3: Contextual factors (media influence); individual-level variables (gender role attitudes and past physical, threatened physical, or interpersonal coercion [PTIC]); and relationship factors (sexual relationship control and decision-making dominance) will predict participants’ rates of acquiescence to sexual activity.

Method

Online survey software SurveyGizmo was utilized to administer the survey online because it allowed participants to answer the sensitive questions anonymously in a setting that was most comfortable for them, and it was appropriate for college-aged students’ frequent use of the internet. Participants currently in a relationship were instructed to report only on their current partner (and if they were casually dating, to report on only one partner). Participants not currently in a relationship were asked to report on their most recent partner in the last 12 months.

Participants

The current data come from 139 undergraduate females, ranging from 18 to 27 years of age (M = 20.17 years, SD = 1.59 years), from a mid-sized private university in Central New York. Only women who were currently in or had been (in the past) in sexual relationships that they termed as either casual (dating) or exclusive (committed) were included. In total, 189 female undergraduates responded to the online survey. In all, 42 participants who had never been in sexual relationships as well as 9 individuals in same-sex relationships were excluded from analysis, yielding a total sample size of 138 women. The sample was predominantly White/Caucasian (n = 113, 81%).

Measures

Gender role attitudes

Four items from the Attitudes Toward Women Scale (Spence & Helmreich, 1978) were used (Cronbach’s α = .70, M = 1.76, SD = 0.53). Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with items such as “Swearing and obscenity are more off-putting in the speech of a woman than of a man” and “Intoxication among women is worse than intoxication among men.” Participants rated their level of agreement with the statements on a 4-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree).

PTIC

Participants were asked “Have you ever been pressured, threatened, or forced into participating in, giving, or receiving: manual activity, oral activity, vaginal activity, anal activity?” Participants indicated whether they were coerced into participating in different types of sexual activity (manual genital stimulation, oral intercourse, vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse). For analysis, experiences of PTIC were coded as a dichotomous variable (yes/no).

Sexual relationship power

To measure sexual relationship power, five items were drawn from the Relationship Control subscale and five items were drawn from Decision-Making Dominance subscale (drawn from the Sexual Relationship Power Scale, as used in Pulerwitz, Gortmaker, & DeJong, 2000). To assess sexual relationship control, participants were asked to rate their degree of agreement with statements such as “Most of the time, we do/would do what my partner wants to do” or “I feel/felt trapped in our relationship.” Participants rated their level of agreement with each statement on a 4-point scale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree). Four items from the subscale were retained (Cronbach’s α = .80, M = 1.60, SD = 0.60). To assess decision-making dominance, the Decision-Making Dominance subscale was used. Participants were asked to indicate whether the statements such as the following were true or false: “My partner generally determines how often we see each other” or “My partner generally determines when we talk about serious things.” An index was created (0 = false, 1 = true) and scores ranged from 0 to 5 (M = 1.24, SD = 1.33). Higher scores on the sexual relationship power subscales are indicative of greater relationship power of the respondent’s partner.

Media influence

The following four items were used: “Popular media portrays ideal sexual relationships and people would be lucky to have such a relationship,” “Popular media informs some of my personal decision making in sexual relationships,” “Popular media encourages me to be sexually active,” and “Popular media has taught me that it’s normal to engage in undesired sexual activity for the sake of the relationship.” Participants rated their level of agreement with each statement on a 4-point scale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree). The value of Cronbach’s α = .62 (M = 2.36, SD = 0.58). Given that only four items were used for the media influence scale, it is not surprising that the reported alpha coefficient falls below .70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

Frequency of sexual acquiescence

Participants were asked “How often do you/did you participate in, give, or receive [sexual activity] that you did not desire even though your partner did NOT pressure, threaten or force you?” for each sexual activity (manual genital stimulation, oral intercourse, vaginal intercourse, or anal intercourse). Response options ranged from 0% (never), 25% (1 out of 4 times), 50% (about half the time), 75% (3 out of 4 times), to 100% (all the time). Participants were instructed to select the frequency that most closely matched their experiences of sexual acquiescence.

Reasons for sexual acquiescence

Participants were asked to complete the sentence “I most commonly engage(d) in unwanted [sexual activity],” followed by the response options “To avoid an argument,” “To avoid upsetting my partner,” “To prevent partner from losing interest,” “To promote intimacy,” “For personal pleasure,” “For sexual experience,” “To please my partner,” “To impress my peers,” or “Because I feel it is my responsibility.” They completed this sentence for each of the four sexual activities.

Consent in sexual acquiescence

Participants were asked to answer the following question: “Most commonly, when you engaged in unwanted sexual activity with your current/most recent partner although they didn’t pressure, threaten, or force you, do/did you . . . ” Participants chose one answer from the following responses: “Go along with it—don’t say ‘yes’ or ‘no,’” “Feign desire to indicate you wanted it,” or “Explicitly tell your partner you wanted it—say ‘yes.’”

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Frequency of sexual acquiescence

Nearly two thirds (n = 88, 64%) of participants had acquiesced to unwanted sexual activity.

Of the 135 women who had engaged in manual stimulation of genitals with their partner, 67 (50%) women had acquiesced to this activity at least once, and the majority did so 25% of the time. Of the 128 women who had engaged in oral sex with their partner, 60 (47%) had acquiesced to the activity at least once, and the majority of individuals did so 25% of the time. Of the 125 women who had engaged in vaginal intercourse with their partner, 41 (33%) had acquiesced at least once, and the majority did so 25% of the time. Of the 14 women who had engaged in anal intercourse with their partner, 9 (64%) women acquiesced at least once, and approximately one third of the women who had acquiesced did so 25% of the time.

Reasons for sexual acquiescence

All of the reasons for acquiescing to unwanted sexual activity may indicate the presence of social coercion in women’s decisions to acquiesce, except for the response option “For personal pleasure.” For all four sexual activities, promoting partner pleasure was most frequently reported (76%-89%) as the reason for women to acquiesce to the unwanted sexual activity, followed by promoting intimacy (33%-51%). Individuals who participated in manual and oral sexual activity reported that they acquiesced to avoid upsetting their partners as the third most common motive (43%-45%), and the third most common motive for acquiescing to unwanted vaginal intercourse was to prevent one’s partner from losing interest (38%). Among the participants who acquiesced to manual, oral, or vaginal activity, 18% to 21% of women did so because they thought it was their responsibility, indicative of social coercion. When acquiescing to unwanted anal sex, gaining sexual experience (67%) was the second most common motive. Of the women who acquiesced to sexual activity, 11% to 19% of participants did so to avoid an argument with their partner.

Role of consent in sexual acquiescence

This study posited that lack of resistance is qualitatively different than overt consent, so participants who had acquiesced to unwanted sexual activity were asked to describe the nature of their acquiescence. The majority (72%) of participants reported most commonly “going along with it,” without ever saying “yes” or “no,” while 21% indicated “yes” by feigning desire and only 4% reported most commonly explicitly saying “yes” to unwanted activity.

Overall, the majority of participants (64%) engaged in unwanted sexual activity and did so 25% of the time they were engaging in any sexual activity. Although engaging in unwanted sexual activity for the sake of the relationship has been assumed as a natural obligation for women in an intimate relationship, the current data on reasons for acquiescing to the unwanted sexual activity, in addition to the role of consent in these instances, challenge this supposition. Participants most commonly reported acquiescing to unwanted sexual activity to promote partner satisfaction, to maintain the relationship, and to avoid negative outcomes associated with the refusal of sex. Moreover, 93% of participants reported passive acquiescence to unwanted sexual activity, and only 4% reported giving explicit consent. These findings challenge the notion of sexual acquiescence as willing, and suggest that women’s passive participation in experiences of sexual acquiescence should be conceptualized separately from women’s passive consent when willingly engaging in desired sexual activity in the absence of coercion. The concept of consent must be interrogated; if women consent to unwanted sexual activity as a result of social coercion or fear of negative outcomes, it is not the same as voluntary consent to a desired sexual activity.

Hypotheses Testing

Hypothesis 1

An independent samples t test showed that women who had acquiesced (M = 1.24, SD = 1.33) scored significantly higher (M = 0.64, SD = 1.05) on measures of Decision-Making Dominance, t(143) = 2.77, p = < .01, meaning that their partners made more decisions regarding the relationship than they did. Women who had acquiesced (M = 1.64, SD = 0.55) also scored higher (M = 1.33, SD = 0.48) on measures of Relationship Control, t(115.8) = 3.51, p < .01. These findings suggest that greater relationship control by one’s partner is related to more frequent acquiescence to sexual activity by women.

Hypothesis 2

The majority (74%) of participants reported most commonly “going along with it,” without every saying “yes” or “no,” while 22% indicated “yes” by feigning desire and only 4% reported most commonly explicitly saying “yes” to unwanted activity. The large majority of women never gave overt consent to engage in the unwanted sexual activity.

Hypothesis 3

Contextual factors (media influence); gender role attitudes, and physical, threatened or interpersonal sexual coercion in past relationships; and relationship factors (sexual relationship control and decision-making dominance) will predict participants’ rates of acquiescence to sexual activity.

To test this hypothesis, hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used. Contextual variables (media influence) were entered into Block 1, explaining 6.8% of the variance in rates of sexual acquiescence. After entry of PTIC and gender role attitudes, the total variance explained by the model was 8.0%, F(3, 124) = 3.60, p < .05, ΔR² = .01, ΔF(2, 124) = 0.82, p = ns. After entry of relationship control and decision-making dominance in Block 3, the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 17.4%, F(5, 122) = 5.15, p < .001, ΔR² = .10, ΔF(2, 122) = 6.95, p < .01 (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Predictors of Sexual Acquiescence.

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
Predictor	Beta	β	Beta	β	Beta	β
Media influence	7.78**	.26**	7.55**	.25**	5.24*	.18*
PTIC			3.56	.10	2.95	.08
Gender role attitudes			1.81	.05	−2.49	−.08
Relationship control					9.45**	.30**
Decision dominance					5.89	.11
ΔF	9.18**		.82		6.95**
ΔR²	.07**		.01		.09**
F	9.18**		3.60*		5.12***
R ²	.07**		.08		.17**

Note. PTIC = Physical, threatened physical, and interpersonal sexual coercion.

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

In the final model, two variables were statistically significant, with relationship control (B = 9.45, p < .01) making the greatest unique contribution followed by media influence (B = 5.24, p < .05).

Discussion

This study suggests that a thorough understanding of sexual acquiescence requires exploration of broader sociocultural contexts within which individuals’ sexuality is constructed, specifically by identifying the role of social coercion in sexual acquiescence. The current study found that approximately 6 out of 10 women had acquiesced to some type of unwanted sexual activity. This frequency is higher than what has been reported in other studies that found that less than 50% of participants had acquiesced to unwanted sexual activity at least once (e.g., O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998; Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2010).

Nearly 80% of participants reported promoting partner pleasure as the most common reason for acquiescing to manual, oral, vaginal, and anal sexual activity, and about half reported acquiescing to unwanted manual, oral, and vaginal activity to avoid upsetting their partner, to avoid an argument, and to prevent their partner from losing interest. According to Finkelhor and Yllo (1985), the subtle pressure placed on women to engage in sexual activity with their partners in the absence of will and desire qualifies as social coercion. These findings suggest that acquiescence may not be “willing” as the literature has defined it thus far. Women may acquiesce (and even give overt verbal consent) to unwanted sexual activity because they feel that it is a better alternative than the consequences (social or otherwise) of refusing participation. As Robinson (2005) explains in her research on unwanted sexual attention, “decisions to do nothing . . . are not necessarily representative of the [woman’s] passivity or enjoyment of the behavior” (p. 26). Instead, acquiescence may be a conscious decision made to avoid physical, threatened physical, or interpersonal coercion, and challenging everyday expectations for gendered heterosexual interactions in intimate relationships may have serious social consequences for some women, so the pressure to conform to the legitimized behaviors becomes a form of social coercion. Although acquiescence may seem normative and unproblematic within heteronormative sexuality, researchers must be careful not to overlook the potential for sexual acquiescence to be part of a sexually coercive experience. When the role of social coercion is considered, it is easier to see how women’s consent is largely taken for granted in the context of heterosexual relationships (Crawford et al., 1994).

The current study’s findings also suggest that women acquiesce to unwanted sexual activity to obtain positive outcomes, such as pleasing one’s partner or promoting intimacy, more than they do to avoid negative outcomes, such as to avoid arguing with one’s partner. These findings are in line with Impett, Peplau, and Gable’s (2005) report that men and women cited approach motives more commonly than avoidance motives. However, approach and avoidance motives are not exclusive of one another. Moreover, although acquiescing to unwanted sexual activity for the sake of the relationship may be seen as normative behavior, Katz and Tirone (2009) found that approach motives have no effect on women’s relationship satisfaction, yet avoidance motives were significantly related to women’s lower levels of relationship satisfaction. Although Impett et al. (2005) found approach motives to be related to positive affect and life satisfaction among men and women, they also found that avoidance motives were significantly related to poorer affect, more robustly than approach motives impacted one’s affect.

Studies also indicate that acquiescence to unwanted sexual activity may have deleterious psychological and physical outcomes (Basile, 1999; Impett et al., 2005; O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998; Walker, 1997). For instance, Christopher (1988) found that women reported feeling “guilty,” “sleazy,” and “violated” after complying with unwanted sexual activity. Similarly, women who did not resist unwanted sexual activity tended to blame themselves or reported feeling as though they had lost a part of their identity after engaging in the activity (Basile, 1999). O’Sullivan and Allgeier (1998) found that 33% of women who had acquiesced to unwanted sexual activity subsequently experienced emotional discomfort, 8% reported physical discomfort, and 12% reported increased relationship tension. Likewise, respondents reported that unwanted sexual experiences to which they acquiesced were less enjoyable than were desired sexual experiences (Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2010). Women who had acquiesced to unwanted sexual activity also reported less sexual satisfaction than women who did not engage in unwanted sexual activity (Katz & Tirone, 2010). These findings suggest that sexual acquiescence should not be disregarded as normative behavior in intimate relationships.

Furthermore, one must also consider that women may participate in unwanted sexual activity because society values compliant or passive behavior for women and such behaviors are seen as positive (Morgan et al., 2006). Hegemonic gender-based discourses continue to inform and dictate heterosexual relationships, and women are taught to be passive while simultaneously being charged with the task of pleasing their sexual partners to maintain the relationship, and men are encouraged to take a “body-centered” approach (with a focus on sex) to intimate relationships. Therefore, the expectation for women to take a “partner-centered” approach to relationships may inform women’s decisions to engage in unwanted sex without overt resistance (Impett & Peplau, 2003). Considering the sociocultural context in which acquiescence takes place, the assumption that consent is given freely and willingly in experiences of acquiescence erroneously omits the possibility that acquiescence may be in response to some sort of covert social coercion to meet societal expectations of women in intimate relationship or to avoid experiencing negative outcomes as a result of refusal.

Research on sexual acquiescence lacks a conceptual model that accounts for sociocultural influence on one’s sexuality and the subsequent manifestation of social coercion. In the current study, exposure to popular media predicted sexual acquiescence, which is consistent with past research that mass media influences sexuality (Izugbara, 2005). This finding suggests that broader social contexts, particularly popular media, may encourage women to engage in unwanted sexual activity without feeling like there is an alternative.

Correspondingly, sexual relationship power, particularly relationship control in favor of the participants’ partners, predicted sexual acquiescence. Although sexual relationship power predicted women’s acquiescence to unwanted sexual activity, past experiences of PTIC did not. This is in contrast to past research that suggests women who have previously been coerced by their partner are more likely to acquiesce than women who are not (Basile, 1999; Katz & Tirone, 2010). The finding that past coercive experiences are not predictive of future acquiescence challenges the idea that coerced women are at greater risk for future victimization. It is also possible that the nonsignificant finding may be the result of using a dichotomous measure of past coercion in the current study. Additional research is needed to explore the relationship between sexual relationship power and coercion, as well as the relationship between past experiences of coercion and future decisions to acquiesce to unwanted sexual activity as a means of avoiding immediate coercion.

The feminist lens used in this study enables one to identify the complexity of acquiescence to sexual activity that has largely been overlooked in the literature and challenges dominant notions of consent. The existing literature on acquiescence to unwanted sexual activity has been termed sexual compliance and has been defined as “willing consent” being “freely given” to unwanted sex in the absence of personal desire and the absence of immediate partner pressure. However, the findings herein suggest that lack of resistance to unwanted sexual activity, called sexual acquiescence for the purpose of this study, is qualitatively different than willing engagement in consensual sexual activity. For example, only 4% of participants reported explicitly giving consent, or saying “yes,” prior to engaging in the unwanted sexual activity, whereas 96% passively engaged in the activity without clearly providing consent. Therefore, defining sexual acquiescence as unwanted sexual activity during which “willing consent” is “freely given” may be inappropriate and misleading given the reported reasons for acquiescence. Given that 60% of women reported engaging in unwanted sexual activity, findings suggest the importance of seeking affirmative, willing consent from one’s partner in order to avoid erroneous assumptions about one’s willingness to participate in sexual activity that may result from taking visual cues from more passive forms of consent. This suggestion is applicable to all sexual encounters, not just instances of sexual acquiescence.

The current study is limited by the homogenous sample of predominantly White, undergraduate women at a private university, which restricts the overall generalizability of the study. Future studies should include both men and women to allow for a more complete gender-based analysis and also to better understand how men’s experiences of unwanted sexual activity are also shaped by gender. Men’s sexual relationship experiences are also gendered, and it is likely that the social expectations for men to engage in sexual activity may encourage them to also engage in—or even pursue—unwanted sexual activity in the absence of immediate partner pressure. Furthermore, the current study does not provide insight into same-sex relationships. Studies conducted on same-sex couple violence have been critiqued for the use of gender-based theoretical frameworks as power dynamics often manifest themselves differently in same-sex relationships (see Little & Terrance, 2010; Ristock, 2003; Stevens, Korchmaros, & Miller, 2010). The role of coercion in same-sex relationships has been investigated to a limited extent, and when studied, these investigations should consider incorporating theoretical frameworks such as minority stress theories or more general theories of power, in addition to gender theories.

The current study is also limited by its measure of gender role attitudes. The Attitudes Toward Women Scale may not be the best measure of gender role attitudes for modern-day college-aged women since it taps into concepts of womanhood that may be outdated for today’s young adults. Furthermore, the measure of sexual acquiescence provided a limited number of response options for participants that might have lead to an overestimation of rates of acquiescence. Additional research should be done to measure the overall rate of acquiescence.

Future research on sexual acquiescence should account for dispositional, situational (relationship-level), and contextual level variables in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of sexual acquiescence. Further examination of relationship commitment or investment in the relationship and its link to sexual acquiescence and decisions to continue with or to terminate relationships characterized by sexual acquiescence is also important. Given the prevalence of alcohol and drug use in the young adult population, particularly on college campuses, future studies should also investigate the role that alcohol and other drugs play in experiences of coercion and acquiescence.

Conclusion

Despite these caveats, the current study provides a critical examination into sexual acquiescence across relationship types in a single study and provides rare insight into acquiescence among four different types of sexual activity. Unfortunately, participating in unwanted sexual activity for reasons other than personal desire has been normalized, and women are often placed in situations that deny them full sexual agency (Hakvag, 2010). Overt forms of coercion are not required for one to acquiesce because social coercion is powerful enough to shape women’s decisions to engage in unwanted sexual activity. The subtle nature of social coercion makes it difficult to identify and appropriately define social acquiescence that is the result of social coercion or to see it as problematic, due to the legitimization of heterosexual gender relations in intimate relationships (Hakvag, 2010). Future studies of sexual acquiescence need to more critically evaluate the normative heterosexist framework of human sexuality that is typically used to understand the complexities of sexual consent, and recognize that, as demonstrated here, acquiescence and coercion may be intimately linked constructs.

Footnotes

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

Nicole E. Conroy is a PhD candidate in child and family studies at Syracuse University and is currently working on her dissertation on young adult dating violence. She holds a BS in psychology and history from Clarkson University as well as an MS in child and family studies and CAS in Women’s Studies from Syracuse University.

Ambika Krishnakumar, PhD, served as graduate advisor for this research project. She is an Associate Professor at Syracuse University in the Department of Child and Family Studies. Her areas of research include marital conflict and youth adjustment, family stress, teen-parenting families, American families and community, and children and families in cross-cultural perspectives.

Janel M. Leone, PhD, served as graduate advisor for this research project. She is an Assistant Professor of Law and Society at the Sage Colleges in Albany, NY. Her research focuses on the intersections between intimate partner victimization and race, class, and gender by exploring victims’ physical and psychological health, perceived social support and coping, and use of the criminal justice system. Further, her work explores the health, economic, and social impact of victimization across diverse and often marginalized groups including low-income African-American women and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons. Dr. Leone earned a PhD in Human Development and Family Studies with a Minor in Women’s Studies from the Pennsylvania State University.

References

Basile

K. C.

(1999). Rape by acquiescence: The ways in which women “give in” to unwanted sex with their husbands. Violence Against Women, 5, 1036-1058. doi:10.1177/1077801299005009004

Brown

J. D.

Halpern

C. T.

L’Engle

K. L.

(2005). Mass media as a sexual super peer for early maturing girls. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 36, 420-427. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.06.003

Charmaraman

McKamey

(2011). Urban early adolescent narratives on sexuality: Accidental and intentional influences of family, peers, and the media. Sexual Research and Social Policy, 8, 253-266. doi:10.1007/s13178-011-0052-3

Christopher

F. S.

(1988). An initial investigation into a continuum of premarital sexual pleasures. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 255-266.

Crawford

Kippax

Waldby

(1994). Women’s sex talk and men’s sex talk: Different worlds. Feminism & Psychology, 4, 571-587. doi:10.1177/0959353594044010

Farvid

Braun

(2006). “Most of us guys are raring to go anytime, anyplace, anywhere”: Male and female sexuality in Cleo and Cosmo. Sex Roles, 55, 295-310. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9084-1

Finkelhor

Yllo

(1985). License to rape: Sexual abuse of wives. New York, NY: Free Press.

Gavey

(1992). Technologies and effects of heterosexual coercion. Feminism & Psychology, 2, 325-351. doi:10.1177/0959353592023003

Hakvag

(2010). Does yes mean yes? Exploring sexual coercion in normative heterosexuality. Canadian Women’s Studies, 28, 121-126.

10.

Impett

E. A.

Peplau

L. A.

(2002). Why some women consent to unwanted sex with a dating partner: Insights from attachment theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 360-370. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00075

11.

Impett

E. A.

Peplau

L. A.

(2003). Sexual compliance: Gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. The Journal of Sex Research, 40, 87-100.

12.

Impett

E. A.

Peplau

L. A.

Gable

S. L.

(2005). Approach and avoidance sexual motives: Implications for personal and interpersonal well-being. Personal Relationships, 12, 465-482. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2005.00126.x

13.

Izugbara

(2005). The socio-cultural context of adolescents’ notions of sex and sexuality in rural south-eastern Nigeria. Sexualities, 8, 600-617. doi:10.1177/1363460705058396

14.

Katz

Tirone

(2009). Women’s sexual compliance with male dating partners: Associations with investment in ideal womanhood and romantic well-being. Sex Roles, 60, 347-356. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9566-4

15.

Katz

Tirone

(2010). Going along with it: Sexually coercive partner behavior predicts dating women’s compliance to unwanted sex. Violence Against Women, 16, 730-742. doi:10.1177/1077801210374867

16.

Little

Terrance

(2010). Perceptions of domestic violence in lesbian relationships: Stereotypes and gender role expectations. Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 429-440. doi:10.1080/00918360903543170

17.

Morgan

Johnson

Sigler

(2006). Gender differences in perceptions for women’s participation in unwanted sexual intercourse. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 515-522. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.09.006

18.

Nunnally

Bernstein

(1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

19.

O’Sullivan

L. F.

Allgeier

E. R.

(1998). Feigning sexual desire: Consenting to unwanted sexual activity in heterosexual dating relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 234-243.

20.

Pulerwitz

Gortmaker

S. L.

DeLong

(2000). Measuring sexual relationship power in HIV/STD research. Sex Roles, 42, 637-660.

21.

Ristock

J. L.

(2003). Exploring dynamics of abusive lesbian relationships: Preliminary analysis of a multisite, qualitative study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 329-341.

22.

Robinson

K. H.

(2005). Reinforcing hegemonic masculinities through sexual harassment: Issues of identity, power and popularity in secondary schools. Gender and Education, 17, 19-37. doi:10.1080/0954025042000301285

23.

Shotland

R. L.

Goodstein

(1992). Sexual precedence reduces the perceived legitimacy of sexual refusal: An examination of attributions concerning date rape and consensual sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 756-764. doi:10.1177/0146167292186012

24.

Smith

Hamon

Ingoldsby

Miller

(2009). Family theories (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

25.

Spence

J. T.

Helmreich

R. L.

(1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.

26.

Stevens

Korchmaros

J. D.

Miller

(2010). A comparison of victimization and perpetration of intimate partner violence among drug abusing heterosexual and lesbian women. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 639-649. doi:10.1007/s10896-010-9321-9

27.

Vannier

S. A.

O’Sullivan

L. F.

(2010). Sex without desire: Characteristics of occasions of sexual compliance in young adults’ committed relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 429-439. doi:10.1080/00224490903132051

28.

Walker

S. J.

(1997). When “no” becomes “yes”: Why girls and women consent to unwanted sex. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 6, 157-166. doi:10.1016/S0962-1849(97)80003-0