Characteristics of male and female victims of sexual coercion.(Report)

Abstract: The current study investigated whether men and women who had experienced sexual coercion shared similar characteristics, and assessed the predictive value of various victim characteristics. Participants were 251 male and 267 female University students. Findings were largely consistent with past literature indicating a prevalence of various forms of coercion of 38.8% for men and 47.9% for women. In addition, past findings on the context of men and women's experience with sexual coercion were replicated, specifically the initiator's strategies, the sexual activities that ensued, and the relationship between the initiator and the victim. For men and women alike, the number of sexual partners, the number of romantic relationships, and the length of the longest romantic relationship were the best predictors of sexually coerced experiences. Furthermore exploration of victim characteristics broke new ground and revealed that the belief in men's sexual accessibility was predictive of sexual victimization for both men and women. Implications of these findings are discussed in reference to sexual script theory.

Introduction

Sexual coercion has been widely studied over the past several decades and is recognized as a prevalent social issue. However, past research has focused almost exclusively on coercion of females by males despite evidence that prevalence rates of sexual coercion of males by females may be as high as 58.5% (Anderson & Sorenson, 1999). It has been argued that the lack of research on sexual coercion by females is due to the scientific community's adherence to the traditional script of sexual experiences (Anderson & Aymami, 1993; O'Sullivan & Byers, 1993). Sexual script theory (Simon & Gagnon, 1986) asserts that culturally constructed scripts structure sexual encounters and delineate what is expected of men and women by providing a model of masculinity and femininity. Men are expected to be avid initiators of sexual activity who are continuously seeking, or are at least amenable to any opportunity for a sexual encounter. In contrast, women are expected to be somewhat resistant to the sexual advances of men by controlling the amount of sexual access a pursuant man is permitted (Byers, 1996; Clements-Schreiber, Rempel, & Desmarais, 1998; O'Sullivan & Byers, 1993).

Much of the research challenging the evidence for these traditional sexual scripts commenced in the 1980s and 1990s when studies revealed that a considerable proportion of women reported having coerced a reluctant man into sexual activity (for a review see Byers & O'Sullivan, 1998). Moreover, men also self-reported unexpectedly high rates of incidents in which they were coerced into unwanted sexual activity by women (for a review see Davies, 2002). The current study builds on this emergent literature by comparing the prevalence of both men's and women's experiences of sexual coercion with both sexes being considered as possible initiators. Our goal was to revisit past findings on the prevalence and context of both men's and women's experience of sexual coercion and to conduct gender comparisons and assess the predictive value of various victim characteristics in relation to such experiences.

Findings from past research on sexual coercion have been difficult to compare because the definition and measurement of sexual coercion have varied across studies. In the current study, we adopted the definition proposed by Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson (1994), who defined sexual coercion as "an experience of being pressured or forced by another person to have contact which involved touching of sexual parts or sexual intercourse--oral, anal, or vaginal" (p. 96). Their definition incorporates "psychological coercion, including verbal persuasion, threat of love withdrawal, bribery, and use of intoxication" (p. 96) without physical force or the intent to harm, and "a higher level of coercion", physical coercion, which includes "physical restraint, physical harm, physical intimidation, threat of harm, and use of weapons" (p. 96).