This study could not have been accomplished without the help of two students
in the Psychology Department of the University of the Pacific, Stockton,
California. Both Todd Kuntz and Jennifer (Zoe) Williams assisted in the design
of the questionaire and in collecting the data. They are both now finishing
Ph.D. programs and I trust they will get similar help from their friends when
they need it.
I was also immeasurably assisted by Roseann Hannon, Ph.D., Chair of the
Psychology Department at UOP, who guided the data collection and analysis, and
critiqued the writing at every stage, as well as providing motivational
assistance at critical times. I owe her more than words can tell.
INTRODUCTION
There is a lack of data on the specifics of consent for sexual
behaviors during dating of heterosexual college students. Is consent given for
individual acts or steps in the interaction? How is it given? In what order do
these events take place? Do people sometimes say no when they mean yes?
This is an important subject, in part, because of the issues of date
rape where the definition of the act itself often hinges on disagreement about
whether or not consent occurred. Consent is also important in more typical
sexual behavior which is wanted by both participants. There is a need to
understand permission giving and its relationship to positive sexuality.
The purpose of this study was to examine the form that consent takes in
the sexual interactions of college students in encounters when they said "yes"
and meant "yes" to sexual behavior with a partner of the other sex. An
additional purpose was to obtain data on the subject of token resistance. This
is a situation that occurs when a person says "no" to a sexual situation when
that person really means "yes". This form of non-consent appears in movies and
novels, such as "Gone With the Wind" and has been studied for several years to
determine if the stereotype actually occurs in real life. The data reveal that
the common stereotype of this behavior is not accurate.
In addition to the data on consent, this study obtained descriptive
data for college students in 1994 on the order in which specific sexual
behaviors occurred during a specific encounter. Prior studies have asked what
behaviors the subject had experienced up to the time of the study, and tabulated
the frequency of occurrence of reported behaviors, and usually assumed a
hierarchy of behaviors. This study is the first that I am aware of that
investigated the specific order of behaviors in a single encounter. While not
directly comparable with earlier studies, this gives a glimpse of what today's
college students are doing sexually.
This study is limited to only those subjects who described encounters
when they said "yes" and meant "yes". Participants who indicated they had not
had a consensual sexual encounter were not included in the analysis. The
questionnaire asked the subjects to indicate for a list of sexual behaviors
typical of heterosexual interactions (based on the prior studies) if consent to
continue was given for each act, and how it was given. Within this group of
participants, it also asked if they ever were in a situation where they said
"no" to a partner when they meant "yes" (called token resistance), and obtained
identical data elements for this encounter. (Definitions)
INITIAL HYPOTHESES
Behavior
1. The specific pattern of individual behaviors will be highly
variable.
2. There will be a similar general pattern for men and
women.
3. The participant's feelings after the encounter will become
more positive with increasing experience with the partner.
Consent
4. Subjects will not give specific permission for all individual sexual
behaviors in a sequence of behaviors.
5. Subjects will give permission
for some behaviors on some occasions. These behaviors most often will be the
initial activity, and sexual intercourse.
6. More permission giving
will occur on dates early in a relationship, compared to dates later in the
relationship.
7. Most permission giving will be non-verbal.
8. Females will report more permission giving than males.
Token Resistance
9. Token resistance will occur in established relationships more often
than in newer relationships.
10. There will be less sexual behavior in
token resistance situations, where no is said even if it is not meant as no.
11. There will be sex differences in the reasons for token resistance.
12. There will be sex differences in how no is said in token
resistance.
13. Women will report using token resistance more than
men.
This study was limited by the available participants. They all were
students in a junior college or university in Northern California. Since
participation was optional, they do not represent a random sample of this
population, but were self-selected on the basis of willingness to participate in
a sexual interaction study. Religious and ethnic minorities sometimes selected
out (based on investigator observations).
In addition, the initial description of the situation called for one in
which the subject "wanted to engage in sexual intercourse or another very
intimate sexual activity". Those subjects who considered that their behavior
with a partner did not fall within these parameters were omitted from the
analysis, and therefore these data cannot be directly compared with prior
studies of sexual behavior which asked all subjects to report on all behaviors.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to study consent for sexual behavior, it is necessary to study
the behavior itself before asking if or how permission was granted for that
behavior. In the review of the literature, I searched for data on specifics of
college student sexual behavior. What, when and how do they do it. I searched
for studies of consent and found very little except in the area of rape. I then
searched for that area where consent is confused by what has been called token
resistance, or saying no when you really mean yes. I will address each area
separately.
Behavior
Specific studies of sexual behavior go back beyond Kinsey, but he is
credited with opening the door to meaningful sex research. In an attempt to
measure the extent of an individual's sexual behavior, Bentler (1968a, 1968b)
developed a sexual behavior scale for males and females which consisted of an
ordinal scale (of the Guttman form) of specific behaviors. In a Guttman scale,
the behaviors make up a hierarchy based on the assumption that someone who has
performed an item higher on the scale is presumed to have also performed all
items lower on the scale. Bentler began with 56 items and, after evaluation, the
list was reduced to 21 key items of behavior for males:
21 Mutual oral manipulation of genitals to mutual orgasm
20
Oral manipulation of male genitals to ejaculation, by female
19 Sexual
intercourse, ventral-dorsal
18 Mutual oral-genital manipulation
17 Oral manipulation of female genitals
16 Oral manipulation
of male genitals, by female
15 Mutual manipulation of genitals to
mutual orgasm
14 Oral contact with male genitals, by female
13 Oral contact with female genitals
12 Manual manipulation
of male genitals to ejaculation, by female
11 Sexual intercourse,
ventral-ventral
10 Mutual manipulation of female genitals to massive
secretions
9 Manual manipulation of male genitals, under clothes, by
female
8 Mutual manipulation of genitals
7 Manual
manipulation of male genitals, over clothes, by female
6 Manual
manipulation of female genitals, under clothes
5 Kissing nipples of
female breast
4 Manual manipulation of female genitals, over clothes
3 Manual manipulation of female breasts, under clothes
2
Manual manipulation of female breasts, over clothes
1 one minute
continuous lip kissing
The list for females was similar, but in a slightly different order:
21 Mutual oral manipulation of genitals to mutual orgasm
20
Oral manipulation of male genitals to ejaculation
19 Sexual
intercourse, ventral-dorsal
18 Mutual manual manipulation of genitals
to mutual orgasm
17 Mutual oral-genital manipulation
16 Oral
manipulation of male genitals
15 Oral manipulation of female genitals,
by male
14 Sexual intercourse, ventral-ventral
13 Oral
contact with male genitals
12 Oral contact with female genitals, by
male
11 Manual manipulation of male genitals to ejaculation
10 Manual manipulation of female genitals to massive
secretions, by male
9 Manual manipulation of male
genitals, under clothes
8 Mutual manipulation of genitals
7 Manual manipulation of male genitals, over clothes
6 Manual
manipulation of female genitals, under clothes, by male
5 Kissing
nipples of female breast, by male
4 Manual manipulation of female
genitals, over clothes, by male
3 Manual manipulation of female
breasts, under clothes, by male
2 Manual manipulation of female
breasts, over clothes, by male
1 one minute continuous lip kissing
No data were provided on the percentage of subjects reporting each
activity, only on the statistical reliability of the scales. The scales are
based on lifetime experience (of 175 male and 175 female college students), and
not on a specific dating experience.
Zuckerman
(1973) produced a similar but shorter list from a college population
(single, sophomore and junior) of 83 males and 101 females, as part of a larger
study. He reported the percentage of subjects having experience with 12
behaviors for males as:
|
% |
12 Coitus, enter vagina from rear |
29 |
11 Coitus, face to face, side |
36 |
10 Coitus, female superior position |
42 |
9 Mouth contact with vagina |
43 |
8 Female mouth contact with penis |
52 |
7 Coitus, male superior position; |
53 |
6 Manual manipulation of vagina |
71 |
5 Manual manipulation of penis |
72 |
4 Mouth contact with breast |
73 |
3 Lying prone on female without penetration |
77 |
2 Feeling nude breast |
80 |
1 Feeling covered breast |
92 |
For females the list is similar:
|
% |
12 Coitus, face to face, side |
19 |
11 Coitus, enter vagina from rear |
22 |
10 Coitus, female superior position |
30 |
9 Coitus, male superior position |
40 |
8 Mouth contact with penis |
40 |
7 Male mouth contact with vagina |
48 |
6 Manipulation of penis |
60 |
5 Male manipulation of vagina |
71 |
4 Mouth contact with breast |
74 |
3 Nude breast felt |
75 |
2 Male prone on female no penetration |
77 |
1 Covered breast felt |
85 |
This work was updated by Cowart and Pollack in
1979 and Cowart-Steckler in
1983, using a more specific list of 31 items. Subjects in each year were
approximately 200 male and 200 female undergraduate psychology students, ages
ranging from 18-21. Significant increases occurred in the number of males and
females having engaged in most of the types of sexual activities on the list
between 1979 and 1983 (Cowart-Steckler, 1983). There was also a slight change in
the ordering of the lists. Consent was not studied, but the percentage of
subjects reporting experiencing a particular behavior was indicated. This list
with percent reporting for each year, in 1983 order for males is:
|
1979 |
1983 |
31 Bondage |
10 |
12 |
30 Use of mild pain |
8 |
16 |
29 Finger penetration of partner's anus |
22 |
39 |
28 Sexual intercourse, sitting |
42 |
48 |
27 Sexual intercourse, standing |
37 |
48 |
26 Hand contact with partner's anal area |
54 |
61 |
25 Sexual intercourse, from rear |
44 |
63 |
24 Male tongue manip. of F. genital to orgasm |
49 |
66 |
23 Shower/bathing with partner |
47 |
68 |
22 Sexual intercourse, female superior |
53 |
71 |
21 Exposure to hard-core erotic materials |
58 |
72 |
20 Sexual intercourse, face-face, side |
65 |
73 |
19 Mutual oral stim. of genitals to orgasm |
51 |
74 |
18 Male tongue manipulation of clitoris |
62 |
75 |
17 Male tongue penetration of vagina |
58 |
76 |
16 Sexual intercourse, partly clothed |
65 |
77 |
15 Male mouth contact with vulva |
64 |
77 |
14 Clitoral manipulation to orgasm by male |
60 |
78 |
13 Masturbation |
73 |
81 |
12 Sexual intercourse, male superior |
71 |
83 |
11 Male manipulation of vulva |
74 |
84 |
10 Female mouth contact with penis |
73 |
86 |
9 Male lying prone on female, no penetration |
79 |
87 |
8 Manipulation of penis by female |
85 |
90 |
7 Clitoral manipulation by male |
77 |
90 |
6 Partner's observation of your nude body |
81 |
92 |
5 Your observation of nude partner |
85 |
91 |
4 Male finger penetration of vagina |
84 |
92 |
3 Esp. to erotic materials sold openly |
88 |
93 |
2 Male mouth contact with female breast |
89 |
94 |
1 Feeling female's nude breast |
94 |
98 |
The table for females is similar but in slightly different order:
|
1979 |
1983 |
30 Anal intercourse |
16 |
13 |
29 Finger penetration of partner's anus |
21 |
19 |
28 Exposure to hard-core erotic materials |
12 |
24 |
27 Sexual intercourse, standing |
24 |
28 |
26 Sexual intercourse, sitting |
39 |
37 |
25 Hand contact with partner's anal area |
45 |
40 |
24 Male tongue manip. of F. genital to orgasm |
34 |
45 |
23 Mutual oral stim. of genitals to orgasm |
38 |
45 |
22 Sexual intercourse, from rear |
38 |
46 |
21 Masturbation |
36 |
54 |
20 Sexual intercourse, female superior |
41 |
55 |
19 Clitoral manipulation to orgasm by male |
44 |
55 |
18 Sexual intercourse, partly clothed |
46 |
56 |
17 Esp. to erotic materials sold openly |
46 |
58 |
16 Shower/bathing with partner |
49 |
58 |
15 Sexual intercourse, face-face, side |
50 |
60 |
14 Male tongue penetration of vagina |
67 |
66 |
13 Male tongue manipulation of clitoris |
54 |
66 |
12 Male mouth contact with vulva |
56 |
66 |
11 Female mouth contact with penis |
58 |
67 |
10 Sexual intercourse, male superior |
53 |
67 |
9 Manipulation of penis by female |
70 |
76 |
8 Male manipulation of vulva |
71 |
77 |
7 Your observation of nude partner |
70 |
78 |
6 Clitoral manipulation by male |
69 |
79 |
5 Partner's observation of your nude body |
72 |
80 |
4 Male lying prone on female, no penetration |
77 |
83 |
3 Male finger penetration of vagina |
78 |
83 |
2 Male mouth contact with female breast |
85 |
91 |
1 Feeling female's nude breast |
86 |
91 |
These data show an increase over the 1973 data, as well as a reordering
of some activities.
The latest in depth study on what people actually do sexually is the
National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), conducted during 1992, and
reported in The Social
Organization of Sexuality by Laumann, Gagnon, Michael and Michaels (1994).
This was a survey, using both face to face interviews and questionnaires, of
3,432 respondents from a probability sample of the US population between the
ages of 18 and 59. While NHSLS examined many items of behavior, it asked
questions in a very different format from the present study, and few direct
comparisons can be made. Comparative results will be referred to in the
discussion where appropriate. A major conclusion of the study, however, that is
applicable here is that the authors believe it was possible to get truthful data
about sexual behavior from their subjects (p. 70). While the present study could
replicate NHSLS methodology, it did provide the level of privacy and
confidentiality necessary to reassure the subjects and permit honest responses.
Laumann et al also noted (p. 79) that they were unable to obtain data
(due to study constraints) on significant non-genital practices that are often
sources of human physical and emotional pleasure, and subjective responses to
these activities. The present study provides a brief glimpse at a part of these
missing data.
Consent
The primary subject of this study, giving consent for sexual behavior,
has been discussed and studied for many years. Muehlenhard (1988a)
discussed the communication problems faced in our society, where we communicate
indirectly about sex instead of openly discussing our sexual desires. Men and
women interpret behavior differently, and come to differing conclusions about
the same behaviors. She summarizes studies that show men are more likely than
women to interpret specific behaviors as indicators of interest in sex.
Much of the consent discussion has centered around the issue of rape,
in particular date/acquaintance rape, and how consent is defined. Muehlenhard, Powch, Phelps
and Giusti (1992) discussed the various definitions of lack of consent in
rape, such as those using the victim's state of mind, the victim's behavior, or
in other more general, but non-operationalized, terms. They point out the two
polar opposites to this discussion. One position is that the victim, most often
the female, must say no or consent is assumed. This shows up in studies (Shotland and Goodstein,
1983; Hannon, Kuntz,
Van Laar, Williams & Hall, 1996) wherein the decision on whether a woman
has been raped considers how emphatically she has said no. This position is
usually attributed to a patriarchal mind set or belief system. The other pole,
held by many feminist writers (of both sexes), is that consent is always assumed
not to be given unless a specific yes is stated. In most of these discussions,
the major activity that is given attention is sexual intercourse (Byers, 1980). Other forms of
sexual behavior are not considered rape and not studied for consent. I have
found no studies in the research literature that address the issue of consent
for activities such as kissing, hugging, etc.
The
second position, requiring a specific consent, is operationalized in the highly
publicized Antioch University policy on sexual behavior (Appendix A) which states
that "'consent' shall be defined as follows: the act of willingly and verbally
agreeing to engage in specific sexual contact or conduct." This policy was
issued in 1990, written by the student government, and received national
attention. Alan Guskin
(1994), the President of Antioch College, wrote a response to the public in
which he pointed out that the students are telling us that sexual freedom and
sexual consent are directly related to each other. The policy is designed to get
partners talking to each other about sex, and sexual safety, instead of assuming
feelings or intent that may not be true. My contact with Antioch University
Psychology Department revealed no studies on which the policy was based, and no
studies of its effectiveness.
In her Presidential address to the Society for the Scientific Study of
Sex in 1993, Pepper Schwartz discussed "The Politics of
Desire". She pointed out that the Antioch policy does not seem to fit the
data (but she did not specify what data she referred to) and that it represents
a social construction. Schwartz reminded us that our role as scientists is to
study what people really do.
Muehlenhard and
Linton (1987) studied dating activity on recent dates and dates where
unwanted sexual activity occurred. Subjects were 342 women and 294 men in a
large public university. They provided a list of 17 specific sexual behaviors,
ranging from kissing without tongue contact to sexual intercourse. Every item on
their list was reported as unwanted by the woman by some percentage of both men
and women during their "worst experience" with sexual aggression. They did not
provide data from recent dates on the frequency of these behaviors.
Hannon, Hall, Kuntz,
Van Laar and Williams (1995) replicated this study, adding questions about a
date where wanted sex occurred. The same list of specific behaviors (from
Muehlenhard and Linton) was offered and the subjects indicated which behaviors
were willingly and unwillingly engaged in. The result was a table of the percent
of subjects participating in a specific act on a specific date. Table 1 is from that study,
and is based on reports from 267 female and 148 male community college students.
Although the method of consent was not studied, the data indicated that
consensual sexual behavior occurred on dates where unwanted behavior also
occurred, that is, that consent was given for some acts and denied for others on
a given date. Of interest is the fact that every specific behavior listed was
checked, in either the willingly or unwillingly engaged in column, by some of
the subjects.
In no study found was there any attempt to assess the specific form of
consent for any given sexual behavior except rape. While consent or non-consent
is an issue in the case of rape, it seems that no one has studied routine
consent in day to day sexual interactions, or in activities other than
intercourse.
Token Resistance
There is a stereotype that exists that indicates that women say "no" to
sex when they really mean "yes", i.e., women engage in token resistance. It
appears in movies (Gone With the Wind), soap operas, and romance novels.
Muehlenhard (1988b) discussed the double standard of sexual behavior that says
that, "Nice women don't say yes", and pointed out several disadvantages of this
belief. However, she was clear that if a woman says no, the man should stop,
even if he thinks she is not serious. If he does not, the result is rape.
In an attempt to investigate whether token resistance behavior actually
happens, Muehlenhard and
Hollabaugh (1988) studied college women. Of 610 participants, 39.3% reported
they had said no to sexual intercourse when they meant yes, at least once. Most
of these women had done this five times or less. In a follow up study, Muehlenhard and Rodgers
(1992) asked 64 male and 65 female college students to respond to three
different situations describing token resistance, and answer how often, if ever,
they had been involved in each situation. They were then asked to write a
narrative about a token resistance situation. More men than women reported being
in such a situation, but only a small percentage of the narratives actually
described situations where the respondent really meant yes when they said no. In
most cases, respondents indicated that they meant no when they said it, even
though in some ways they wanted to have sex. This study cast doubt on the prior
work in this area, and pointed out how difficult it was to get this concept
clear in a study. It also showed that the stereotypes, (1) that only women use
token resistance, (2) that it is used only in situations involving new partners,
or (3) that it is done for manipulative reasons, are false.
In a later study, Muehlenhard, Giusti and
Rodgers (1993) again studied the problem of definition of token resistance.
They assessed both experience with, and stereotypes about, token resistance and
asked why it was done. The stereotypes again included (1) that it occurs at the
beginning of a relationship, before intercourse has occurred, (2) is done
because it was too early to have intercourse, (3) they did not want to appear
eager, or (4) they had inhibitions about intercourse. Those respondents who had
experienced token resistance reported that it most often occurred later in a
relationship, and the reasons both men and women gave were to increase sexual
arousal, and in addition, women did not want to be taken for granted.
The present study is an attempt to increase our knowledge of token
resistance behavior, as it is an integral part of the process of coming to
agreement about sexual behavior for some individuals.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 264 women and 158 men (M age 20.9) enrolled in
undergraduate social/behavioral science and humanities courses at a 4-year
private university and a 2-year public college in Northern California during the
Spring term of 1994. Most of these students were single and had never been
married (89.3%). The majority of the ethnic backgrounds were European American
(63%), Latin American (10.9%) and Asian American (7.3%), with no other group
over 5%. Sexual attraction was reported as opposite sex by 96.4%, same sex by
1.9%, and both sexes by 1.4% of this group.
Measures
Dating behaviors and permission giving were measured using a
questionnaire developed from the study by Hannon et al (1995) on risk
factors for sexual behavior, and the studies on token resistance. (For a copy of
the questionnaire, please contact the author.) After completing the first part
of the questionnaire on demographic characteristics, participants were asked if
they had ever been in a situation where their partner wanted to engage in sexual
intercourse (or another very intimate sexual activity), and they fully intended
to engage in this activity as soon as they realized what their partner wanted,
and they indicated "yes", either verbally or non-verbally.
Participants who answered "yes" to this question were included in the
study. (Those who answered "no" were asked to answer the questions which
followed based on what they imagined would happen, and these responses were
dropped from the analysis).
Participants were then asked to describe their most recent sexual
experience wherein they indicated "yes", how they indicated this (verbally or
nonverbally), and, if non-verbally, how the non-verbal response was given. This
question was followed by a table of sexual activities that commonly occur in
sexual interactions. Participants were instructed to indicate numerically, in
the first column, in what order the activities occurred. If they did not engage
in an activity, they were to leave the space blank. They were then asked, for
each numbered item in column one, to write "yes" in column two if they
"specifically indicated" it was okay to continue. In column three, they were
asked to follow each "yes" answer in column two with "verbal" or "non-verbal" to
show how they indicated their "yes".
Additional demographic questions were then asked about the partner's
age and gender, and about prior sexual intercourse (or intimate activity)
experience with this partner. Participants were then asked to indicate, on a
7-point Likert scale, how they felt about this experience, from "Terrible" to
"OK" to "Wonderful", and to write a verbal description of how they felt.
Participants were next asked if they had ever been in a situation where
their partner wanted to engage in sexual intercourse or another very intimate
sexual activity, and they fully intended to do so, but indicated "no", either
verbally or non-verbally, while meaning "yes". Additional questions were asked
on how this "no" was indicated. Prior research on token resistance indicates
that this concept is a difficult one to communicate, so a confirming question
was then asked, "What did you actually mean at the time you said 'no' to your
partner?" The two possible answers were, "I really meant 'no' at the time, but
later changed my mind", and, "I really meant 'yes', but said 'no' even though I
knew I wanted to engage in sexual activity". Only those who chose the latter
response met the definition of token resistance and were included in the
analysis of this part of the study.
This was followed by a repeat of the previous table on activities,
order and permission giving, and partner demographics and experience. Identical
questions on how participants felt were provided, and then they were asked to
think back to the beginning of this situation where they indicated "no" but
meant "yes". A list of reasons for this action was provided, and they were asked
to indicate, using a 3-point scale, how important each reason was in their
decision to do this.
Procedure
Questionnaires were administered in classroom settings during regular
class meetings. Participants were treated in accordance with American
Psychological Association guidelines for research with human participants, and
were given no special inducement to participate in the study (except for 10
points extra credit in one class) and no penalty for refusing to participate.
They were told that the purpose of the survey was to obtain information about
sexual interactions and told not to put their name on the questionnaire. They
were assured anonymity and asked to answer the questionnaire honestly and
seriously, and asked not to discuss it with fellow students for the next week.
An informed consent form and a sample of the table in the questionnaire was
passed out, and the instructions for the table were explained. Those
participants who then signed the consent form (about 98% of those solicited)
were given a questionnaire.
After participants had completed the questionnaires, they were asked to
fold them and place them in a box on the instructor's desk. They were handed a
debriefing form on the purpose of the study.
Completed forms were assigned a subject number and source code, and the
consent forms were destroyed to maintain confidentiality of participants.
Access to the completed handwritten questionnaires is restricted to the
investigators only. The data were converted to a computer file and analyzed
using SPSS. This data file is available for further analysis if additional
questions arise.
RESULTS
Demographics
The data reported herein are based on 73.5% of the original subjects.
These were the 118 males (74.7% of the original subjects) and 192 females (72.7%
of the original subjects) who answered "yes" to the questions that indicated
they and their partner had wanted to engage in intimate sexual activity, and
they had indicated this either verbally or non-verbally to their partner.
(Subjects who reported that their partner's gender was the same as their own
were removed from the data set). The mean age for females was 21.5 and for males
was 20.8, and only 10% of the male subjects and 16% of the female subjects were
25 or older. Marital status was "single, never married" for 82.8% of the females
and 92.4% of the males. Females were 72.9% European American, 6.8% Latin
American, and 5.7% African American. Males were 60.2% European American, 15.3%
Latin American, and 5.1% Asian American. All other ethnic groups were less than
5% of each gender. The sexual orientation was reported as heterosexual for 97.5%
of the males and 97.9% of the females. See Table 2 for the demographic
variables.
Behaviors
There were 12 items of sexual behavior (plus an "other" category)
listed in the survey questionnaire, and the subjects were asked if they
performed each action in a recent sexual situation, and in what order. Table 3 presents the data on
the percentage of subjects reporting each activity, and Table 4 and Table 5 (for female and male)
show the percentage of subjects reporting the activity in each ordinal position,
and the mean of these ordinal values. The final column in Tables 4 and 5 is the
percent of subjects not reporting doing each activity.
Men reported the following activities significantly more often than
women: She touched his chest, 2 (1, N = 310) = 3.92, p < .05; He did oral sex
on her, 2 (1, N = 310) = 8.02, p < .01; and She did oral sex on him, 2 (1, N
= 310) = 7.42, p < .01.
Using Tables 4 and 5 it is possible to visualize the general flow of
behaviors and see a nominal pattern, but the actual reported sequences are
highly variable. The data were separately coded using the alphabet to indicate
the order of activities. This gave a group of letters that indicated each
behavioral sequence. The items were coded so that male and female responses
indicated the same kind of behavior. These scripts were then sorted
alphabetically. In over 300 sets of data there is only one subset of 4 women who
report an identical activity sequence: kissing, hugging, her breasts and
genitals touched, his genitals touched, intercourse, her orgasm and his orgasm.
There are 5 cases of three identical sequences, and 18 cases of two identical
sequences. All the rest are unique sequences of events. Three subjects report
only kissing and hugging, and only 6 report going directly to intercourse from
kissing and hugging.
More than 90% of the subjects reported kissing as the first or second
activity. Those that did not begin with a kiss mostly began with hugging. A few
began with other bodily contact. Only six subject began at the genitals, and one
female reported only fellatio and his orgasm. After kissing and hugging, the
order varies. Females more often reported he touched her breasts and genitals
before she touched his, while males often report she touched his chest and
genitals before he touched hers. Females were more likely to report he did oral
sex first, males more often said she did it first. The mean order of the final
three items are in the same sequence for men and women (if "other" is
disregarded), "she had orgasm", "he had orgasm" and "anal intercourse".
Over 80% of the male and female subjects reported that penile-vaginal
intercourse occurred, and about three-quarters reported the male as having
orgasm. Female orgasm was reported less often (59.4% by males and 66.1% by
females). Males reported fellatio and cunnilingus about 50% of the time. Anal
intercourse occurred in less than 10% of the cases.
Females reported both giving and receiving less oral sex than males,
and that female orgasm occurred less often, while male orgasm occurred slightly
more often.
Items reported under "other" include
repeating, disrobing, talking sexy, more touching, massage, three-way, pushing
away, and getting sick. Table
6 presents the experience level reported by the subjects for sexual
intercourse with this partner. The women were significantly more experienced
with their partner than the men 2 (2, N = 307) = 7.83, p < .02. Table 6 also
indicates the median number of prior experiences with this partner (7.5
experiences for males and 10 for females), and the mean of the reported feeling
about this experience on a Likert scale where 1 = Terrible, 4 = OK and 7 =
Wonderful. Males averaged 5.66, females averaged 5.80, and this difference was
not significant. When sorted by the level of prior sexual experience with this
partner [intercourse (or very intimate sexual activity) had not yet occurred,
intercourse (etc.) had occurred but was still new, and having intercourse (etc.)
with this partner for a long time] (Table 7), those with no prior
experience report feeling means of 5.12 for males and 5.23 for females. When the
relationship had involved intercourse but was still new (median number of prior
experiences was 5 for both genders), the values were 5.71 for males and 5.42 for
females, and those with a high level of prior experience with this partner
(median number of prior experiences was 60 for females and 75 for males)
reported feeling levels of 6.08 for males and 6.24 for females. A 2 x 3 ANOVA
was run on feeling with levels of prior experience as one variable and gender as
the other. There was a significant effect for prior experience level, F (2, N =
297) = 20.37, p < .001. There was no significant effect for gender and no
significant interaction.
When the data were sorted by prior experience with this partner most of
the married subjects were in the high experience group, and the mean age of this
group was higher as well. The high experience group also contained most of the
African American subjects. The percentage reporting the following behaviors
during the sexual encounter increased with experience level: he did oral sex,
she did oral sex, he had an orgasm, she had an orgasm, male reports of anal
intercourse, and touching in general. The order of specific behaviors was
essentially unchanged across the groups. The only noticeable change was that
males with no prior experience placed intercourse ahead of oral sex. See Tables C1 to C12 for the data
sorted by level of prior experience.
Consent
Table 8 is the
response to a question regarding how the subjects initially indicated to the
partners that they really wanted to engage in a sexual experience. Of the
females, 62.5% indicated that they did this both verbally and nonverbally, while
59.3% of the males did both. Only 29.7% of the males and 26.6% of the females
used exclusively nonverbal permission. The methods of nonverbal permission are
also listed, and the most commonly endorsed are those that are proactive, such
as kissing and touching. There was a significant difference with females more
likely than men to respond with "Did not move away", 2 (1, N = 276) = 5.12, p
< .05, and "Hugged and caressed", 2 (1, N = 276) = 4.54, p < .05.
Table 9 indicates
the frequency of reported consent to continue (verbal and nonverbal) given
during the sexual activity. With the exception of "other", intercourse was most
likely to be associated with permission granted. Over 75% of the time,
permission to continue was granted for penile-vaginal or anal intercourse, and
the rates are about the same for men and women. Oral sex followed closely
behind, in the 60-70% range. Orgasms were associated with the lowest reported
level of permission granting, but were still in the range of one-third. Men
reported giving significantly more permission to continue for the following
activities than women: She touched his chest, 2 (1, N = 167) = 7.22, p < .01
and She touched his genitals, 2 (1, N = 215) = 10.85, p < .001.
When given, most permission was granted non-verbally.
Table 10 shows that for
all activities except intercourse and oral sex (and "other" which was quite
rare), the rates of giving verbal consent were less than 20 percent of all who
performed that activity. Only in the case of females reporting intercourse did
the giving of verbal permission exceed 40% of the events, and it was the only
activity where the ratio of verbal to non-verbal exceeded one-half. In general,
men reported giving permission verbally more often than women, but the
difference was not significant.
When sorted by prior experience level, the proportion of each group
reporting saying yes only nonverbally did not change consistently across groups.
How initial permission was given nonverbally (Table C2) showed the
highest percentage of intimate behaviors, such as kissing and touching, usually
occurred in the middle (still new) group. The percentage of female subjects
giving permission for each activity (Table C4), both verbally
and nonverbally, generally dropped some with experience, while the male values
were slightly lower in the middle group. Permission giving was usually highest
for P/V intercourse and oral sex (Tables C4-C6).
Token
Resistance
The demographics of the subset of subjects who 1) answered yes to the
question asking if they had ever said no when they meant yes, and 2) answered
the later question that they really meant yes but said no even though they knew
they wanted to engage in sexual activity, is shown in Table 11. This group, only
18.7% of the total subjects, was generally younger, contained no married
subjects who are living together and only one married female living apart. There
were no Asian Americans, and the group was all self reported as heterosexual. A
larger percentage of men reported token resistance, but the difference was not
significant.
Data are reported for this group for both the most recent encounter
they described (called the clear consent encounter), a subset of the data
previously discussed, and the encounter where they said no and meant yes (called
the token resistance encounter). Their experience level as reported for the
clear consent encounter was similar to the whole group (Table 12). When reporting the
token resistance encounter, the overall experience level with their partner
dropped but the difference was not significant. Their reported feelings after
the token resistance encounter were also lower. Paired t-tests were run to
compare the mean feeling with this partner reported by participants following
clear consent encounters versus token resistance encounters. There was a
significant difference between the two types of encounters for both women and
men. Feelings were less positive for the token resistance encounter for both
men, t (21) = 2.81, p <. 05, and women t (31) = 6.00, p < .001.
The percent using verbal and nonverbal methods to say
no and the method used to say no nonverbally is shown in Table 13. There was no
significant difference between genders on these answers.
Comparison of behaviors reported in the clear consent encounter and the
token resistance encounter are shown in Tables 14, 15, 16, 17, &18. It is apparent that all
activities occur less often in the token resistance encounter, and in looking at
the sequence charts, the scripts are shorter. There are 5 cases (8.6% of the
total, 3 female and 2 male) where the only reported activity is kissing and
hugging. It appears that saying no, even if you don't mean it, has the effect of
lessening sexual activity. Permission giving for both encounters is shown in
Tables 19-20. Since the N in many cells
is quite small, no significance testing was done.
The subjects were asked to rate the reason for giving token resistance,
on a three point Likert scale where 0 = Not a Reason, 1 = A Moderately Important
Reason and 2 = A Very Important Reason. The highest rated answer for females was
"I didn't want my partner to take sex for granted" (mean rating = 1.15). A
one-way ANOVA was run to compare genders, and there was a significant difference
for this answer, F (1, N = 47) = 8.42, p < .01. The highest rated answer for
males was, "I wanted my partner to be the initiator" (1.05). Other moderately
important reasons for women were "It was too early in the relationship" and "I
was afraid of being emotionally hurt or used", which was also significantly
higher than the males F (1, N = 37) = 6.64, p < .05. "I didn't want to appear
too aggressive or eager" was rated second by males and fourth by females. The
mean values for all the questions are listed in Table 21.
DISCUSSION
Accuracy of the data
There is always a question in sex research as to whether subjects
honestly report on their own sexual behavior. It has often been said that
"Everybody lies about sex". In assessing this question for this study, one of
the most encouraging results is the almost total lack of reports of identical
behavior sequences. This large variation in behavioral patterns indicates that
there is no specific script that was followed, and that the probability is great
that the individuals are reporting truthfully, rather than reporting some
culturally expected pattern of activities. In addition, the many written
comments on their feelings after the encounter (in a space provided on the
questionnaire) were very personal and seemed heartfelt.
While not directly comparable to NHSLS, the figures in Table 3 for percent of
subjects doing oral sex and anal sex are within the ranges reported for the
national probability sample 18-24 age group (Table 3.6, Laumann, et al, 1994).
The fact that females report both giving and receiving less oral sex than males
is also consistent with NHSLS data, as is the lower incidence of anal
intercourse. This is apparent, even though the females in this study population
are more experienced (with the partner in their encounter) than the males.
Hypotheses testing
Behavior
1. The specific pattern of individual behaviors will be highly
variable. This is apparent from the data in Tables 4 and 5, and a review of the
individual sequences which showed almost no duplication of sequences.
2. There will be a similar general pattern for men and women. This is
also supported, as is apparent from Tables 4, 5, and C7 through C12.
3. The participant's feelings after the encounter will become more
positive with increasing experience with the partner. This was significant at
the .001 level as shown in Table 7. The overall feeling
reported after a sexual encounter became more positive with experience for both
men and women. In contrast, after the token resistance encounter, the feelings
were more negative than for the clear consent encounter with the same subjects,
as well as more negative than the most inexperienced subjects overall.
Consent
4. Subjects will not give specific permission for all individual sexual
behaviors in a sequence of behaviors. This is confirmed by examination of the
data in Tables 9 and 19. Much of the behavior
proceeds without specific permission to continue. This is not unusual, and is
consistent with the assumption that a wanted sexual activity, once begun, is a
consensual process unless a no is spoken or indicated.
5. Subjects will give permission for some behaviors on some occasions.
These behaviors most often will be the initial activity, and sexual intercourse.
The results indicate that intercourse is associated with the most permission
giving, with oral sex second. Since the study only investigated a consensual
encounter, it is not possible to clearly assess permission giving for the
initial activity for the larger population. Reported permission giving for
kissing, usually the first activity, was at 59%, but this may be an artifact of
the questionnaire construction, since subjects had already answered a question
on how they gave permission to begin the encounter.
6. More permission giving will occur on dates early in a relationship,
compared to dates later in the relationship. This hypothesis was not supported.
The data in Table C4
shows a decreasing trend for females, and a mixed response for males.
Permission giving averages about 50% across most behaviors.
7. Most permission giving will be non-verbal. This is confirmed by
inspection of Tables 10
and 20.
8. Females will report more permission giving than males. This
hypotheses was not supported. In general, males reported more consent to
continue than females, in some cases at high levels of significance.
Token resistance
9. Token resistance will occur in established relationships more often
than in newer relationships. This hypothesis was not supported (see Table 12). When comparing the
two encounters in the token resistance group, the majority of the token
resistance encounters occurred in new relationships, but the differences were
not significant. Token resistance appears to occur at various times in a
relationship, and for many reasons.
10. There will be less sexual behavior in token resistance situations,
where no is said even if it is not meant as no. This hypothesis is supported by
the data shown in Table 14
where there is a drop in both male and female reported activities.
11. There will be sex differences in the reasons for token resistance.
This is supported, as shown in Table 21. Men and women gave
their highest support to different reasons, and the difference across gender for
the same reasons was significant for two of the reasons. The importance of
various reasons for using token resistance are similar for men in this study and
Muehlenhard, Giusti and Rodgers (1993), with the rating levels of the top items
almost the same (corrected for different scale factors). For women, the first
item on this list (I didn't want my partner to take sex for granted) was second
on Muehlenhard et al's (and rated at almost the same value), while Muehlenhard
et al's first (Desire to heighten sexual arousal) was quite low in this study.
12. There will be sex differences in how no is said in token
resistance. There are differences shown on Table 13, but they are not
significant.
13. Women will report using token resistance more than men. This is not
supported by the data. More men in this study report using token resistance, but
the difference is not significant. The prevalence of token resistance is lower
for women in this study than in Muehlenhard, Giusti and Rodgers (1993) where
39.6% of the women and 21.1% of the men reported in engaging in token
resistance. Women in their study reported engaging in token resistance most
frequently (47.6%) in relationships in which they had been having sexual
intercourse a long time, compared with 29.4% in this study.
General comments
These results indicate that much of the sexual activity of college
students proceeds without much verbal permission granting, and there is a higher
reliance on nonverbal permission. For the more intimate activities, such as oral
sex and intercourse, both vaginal and anal, verbal permission occurs more often
than it does for other activities, but much of this activity goes on with
nonverbal or no specific permission. It would appear that the Antioch policy has
not been adopted by this sample of college students in Northern California.
A comparison of the frequency of individual
behaviors in my study with past studies is presented in Table 22 for the six
behaviors that were measured in all the studies. The first three studies were
based on questions regarding lifetime experience with the behaviors, while the
last two were about activities on a particular date that the questionnaire was
exploring. There is an increasing trend with time for both sets of studies for
almost all behaviors.
Overall, this study presents a complex portrait of college student
sexual behavior and permission giving in a format not previously used. It can be
useful in designing future studies of sexual behavior, and looking at permission
for behavior.
SUMMARY AND FUTURE RESEARCH TOPICS
This study has collected and analyzed data on the consensual sexual
behavior of college students. The results indicate that individual behavior
patterns are diverse, but some general trends can be observed. There is a
progression from light touching (kissing and hugging) to more complete body
touching to genital contact and penetration, and ending in orgasm and,
occasionally, anal activity.
The data on consent is new information on this subject. While verbal
permission is sometimes given for each activity, intimate sexual activity most
often proceeds on the basis of nonverbal or some form of understood permission.
This unstated permission probably comes from the permission to begin the
encounter in the first place, the social behavior that precedes the beginning of
the encounter and a mind set that assumes yes unless a no is heard. This is the
environment that sets the stage for date/acquaintance rape. In the study by
Hannon et al. (1995) it was clear that consensual sex occurred on dates where
unwanted sex also occurred. Clearly the subject of consent is worthy of further
study. Studies which address the issue of how much permission is granted at the
beginning of a sexual encounter, and for exactly which activities, would be
interesting. Beliefs about what consent means should also be investigated. More
clarity on how nonverbal consent is actually given, and possibly is
misinterpreted, at various steps in the process would be valuable in the date
rape prevention area.
The subject of "Token Resistance" is a difficult one to capture in a
questionnaire. It may be necessary to explore this area using interview methods.
It is clear from the data in this and prior studies that it occurs, and not only
in the stereo-typical first encounter, but at any stage in a relationship. A
major finding of this study is that it has the effect of reducing sexual
behavior during that encounter. The females first reason was "I didn't want my
partner to take sex for granted". Apparently he didn't. This information may
help individuals learn that it is not useful to say no when they really do want
to have a sexual encounter. Honesty seems to be the best policy.
Another interesting result is the data that indicated a significant
increase in the levels of positive feeling as the relationship becomes well
established.
Exploring the reasons for this increase would be worthwhile. In
future studies of this type it would be useful to add some additional items of
behavior, such as disrobing, observing each other naked, use of toys, other
touching, and massaging. It would help to be more specific as to where in the
behavioral sequence any token resistance occurs.
Bibliography
Appendix A
Appendix C (Charts)
Return to Front Page