Content uploaded by Jennifer Katz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jennifer Katz on Feb 01, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article
Violence Against Women
16(7) 730 –742
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1077801210374867
http://vaw.sagepub.com
Going Along With It:
Sexually Coercive
Partner Behavior
Predicts Dating
Women’s Compliance
With Unwanted Sex
Jennifer Katz1 and Vanessa Tirone2
Abstract
Sexual compliance involves willing consent to unwanted sex despite a lack of sexual
desire. The authors hypothesized that compliance would be significantly more common
among women with sexually coercive partners because compliance allows women
to bypass possible coercion. Undergraduate women in heterosexual relationships
(N = 76) responded to self-report measures of partner sexually coercive behavior
at baseline and sexual compliance 6 weeks later. As expected, reports of partner
coercive behavior at Time 1 predicted women’s willing consent to unwanted sex
at Time 2. Most compliant women consented to unwanted sex after learning their
partners may coerce them if they refuse.
Keywords
dating, sexual coercion, sexual compliance
Ideally, sexual interactions are consensual and motivated by mutual desire. Not all
consensual sex, however, is desired. Some researchers refer to voluntary but
unwanted sex as sexual compliance. Specifically, compliance involves consenting
to unwanted sexual penetration without sexual desire in the absence of immediate
partner sexual pressure (Shotland & Hunter, 1995; Sprecher, Hatfield, Cortese,
1State University of New York College at Geneseo
2University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Corresponding Author:
Jennifer Katz, Department of Psychology, State University of New York College at Geneseo,
Geneseo, NY 14454
Email: katz@geneseo.edu
Katz and Tirone 731
Potapova, & Levitskaya, 1994). Prevalence rates vary, although compliance is most
commonly reported in the context of a committed (rather than casual) relationship and
is more commonly reported by women than men (see Impett & Peplau, 2003, for a
review). Besides denying their own sexual desires, women who comply with unwanted
intercourse may also experience physical health consequences (e.g., pregnancy, sexu-
ally transmitted infection [STI] transmission) as well as decreased happiness within
their romantic relationships (Katz & Tirone, 2009). Given these physical and emo-
tional risks, research is needed to understand why women go along with sex that they
do not want.
Two primary conceptualizations have been developed to explain consent to unwanted
sex with partners. The more optimistic perspective is that sexual compliance may pro-
mote commitment and intimacy within a romantic relationship (e.g., Impett & Peplau,
2002, 2003). For example, O’Sullivan and Allgeier (1998) found that 88% of women
who complied with unwanted sexual activity reported positive consequences, such as
promoting dating partner satisfaction and avoiding relationship tension. An alternative
view characterizes compliance as a consequence of a partner’s previous acts of sexual
coercion. For example, Basile (1999) found that some of the married or cohabiting
adult women in her community sample (N = 41) gave in to unwanted sex because it
was easier not to argue (27%), because they knew what would happen if they didn’t
agree (20%), or because they were afraid of what would happen if they didn’t (7%). In
other words, these women went along with unwanted sex after learning that their
sexual refusals might result in being psychologically or physically pressured into sex
(i.e., sexual coercion).
Studies of women’s “unwanted sex” inappropriately confound consensual unwanted
sex (sexual compliance) with nonconsensual unwanted sex (sexual coercion; see, for
example, O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998); only the latter involves surrender to immedi-
ate partner pressure. Nonetheless, these two categories of unwanted sex may not be
clearly distinguished when compliance is predicted by a partner’s past (rather than
immediate) coercive behavior. In other words, a woman whose partner has refused to
accept her sexual refusals subsequently may choose not to resist his sexual advances,
even when she does not desire sex. This woman may consent to unwanted sex without
being pressured at that specific moment. However, she complies after having learned
that this partner previously refused “to take no for an answer.” Put another way, as
suggested by Basile (1999), willing consent to unwanted sex could allow women with
sexually coercive partners to bypass being sexually coerced.
In the present research, partners were identified as sexually coercive if they report-
edly continued to exert sexual pressure after being asked to stop (Struckman-Johnson,
Struckman-Johnson, & Anderson, 2003). Struckman-Johnson et al. (2003) found that
such tactics of sexual coercion, referred to as partner postrefusal sexual persistence
(PRSP), often but not always led to sexual penetration. College women commonly
report experiencing PRSP; Struckman-Johnson et al. reported that 78% of women in
their undergraduate sample reported experiencing at least one PRSP tactic from a
boy or man since age 16. Furthermore, men in their sample were significantly more
732 Violence Against Women 16(7)
likely than women to report using PRSP. Both of these findings are consistent with
typical normative expectations for heterosexual interaction involving male domi-
nance and sexual persistence (e.g., Gavey, 2005; Holland, Ramazanoglu, Sharpe, &
Thompson, 2004).
To our knowledge, an intimate partner’s sexually coercive behavior has not been
examined as a predictor of women’s later sexual compliance with that partner. General
research on coerced sex suggests that, in an intimate relationship, psychological pres-
sure is more often used than incapacitating substances or force because partners can
obtain sexual access without escalating to more severe tactics (e.g., Abbey, BeShears,
Clinton-Sherrod, & McAuslan, 2004; Ramisetty-Mikler, Caetano, & McGrath, 2007).
These findings indicate that women may sexually submit to intimate partners even in
response to relatively mild tactics of sexual coercion. Extending this past research, we
expect that any past coercive behavior by one’s partner will increase the likelihood
that women will later consent to unwanted sex with that same partner because “going
along with it” could allow women to bypass sexual coercion.
In addition, we examined women’s sexual well-being as related to their own com-
pliance. When asked directly about the consequences of their own compliant behavior,
women generally report that compliant sexual activity (not necessarily intercourse)
benefits their relationships and, most commonly, promotes partner satisfaction (O’Sullivan
& Allgeier, 1998). Nevertheless, although women often comply with unwanted sex to
enhance their relationship, these motives are not positively associated with women’s
relationship satisfaction (Katz & Tirone, 2009). In fact, Katz and Tirone (2009)
showed that sexually compliant women were less generally satisfied with their roman-
tic relationships than other women, and decreased satisfaction was especially pro-
nounced among women who reported complying to avoid partner upset or conflict.
This finding seems particularly relevant to women’s compliance with sexually coer-
cive partners. That is, women with coercive partners who comply with sex may be at
particular risk for poorer relationship well-being because such women presumably
comply to avoid being coerced. Extending past research focused on general relation-
ship satisfaction, the present study focused on women’s sexual satisfaction, defined as
subjective feelings of enjoyment and happiness from sexual interactions with her dat-
ing partner (Hudson, Harrison, & Crosscup, 1981).
To summarize, the primary purpose of this research was to test the hypothesis that
women with sexually coercive partners would be more likely than other women to
comply with unwanted sex. More specifically, the odds of women’s sexual compli-
ance at a 6-week follow-up were expected to be significantly increased as a function
of partner coercive behavior at baseline. A secondary purpose was to test whether
partner sexually coercive behavior moderates the relationship between women’s com-
pliance and sexual satisfaction. We expected that women who reported compliance at
follow-up concurrently would report less satisfying sexual interactions to the degree
that their partners were sexually coercive at baseline. Finally, we also assessed and
controlled for women’s past sexual victimization prior to the current relationship. Child-
hood or adolescent victimization may put women at elevated risk for later victimization,
Katz and Tirone 733
including sexual coercion (e.g., Classen, Field, Koopman, Nevill-Manning, & Spiegel,
2001; Daigle, Fisher, & Cullen, 2008; Messman-Moore & Long, 2000), which might
confound the expected positive associations among partner coercive behaviors and
women’s compliance. Similarly, past sexual victimization may diminish women’s
later sexual well-being, including sexual satisfaction (Polusny & Follette, 1995), and
thus could confound the expected negative association between women’s compliance
and sexual satisfaction.
Method
Participants
Undergraduate women (N = 100) from a small public college in the northeastern
United States volunteered to participate in a longitudinal study of “Dating Relation-
ships and Sexual Interactions” through a voluntary human participants pool. All
women were at least 18 years old and in a committed romantic heterosexual relation-
ship in which they saw their partner in person at least twice a month. The mean ages
were 19.25 (SD = 1.06, range 18-21) for participants and 19.60 (SD = 3.40, range
17-28) for partners. On average, relationships had lasted 22.53 months (SD = 20.45,
range 1-96) based on baseline reports. More than 90% identified as White. Ten women
did not respond to the follow-up survey, and 11 responded but reported that their
dating relationships had ended since Time 1. Univariate comparisons revealed no dif-
ferences between study completers and noncompleters in terms of baseline demographic
or study variables. Seventy-nine women had complete data at both time points. Study
analyses were based on the subsample of 76 women who reported consensual sex
(vaginal, oral, or anal) with their partners at baseline.
Measures
Sexual compliance was assessed at both Time 1 and Time 2 with a single item adapted
from past research (Impett & Peplau, 2002): “Approximately how many times did you
willingly consent to sexual intercourse even though you didn’t really want to have
intercourse?” Intercourse was defined as oral, vaginal, or anal penetration. At Time 1,
each woman was asked about experiences of compliance over the course of her cur-
rent intimate relationship, whereas at Time 2, women were asked about experiences of
compliance with that partner only in the past month. This ensured that positive
responses at Time 2 would not be redundant with responses at Time 1. Women who
reported nonzero responses to these items about compliance frequency were classified
as sexually compliant at each assessment.
Partner sexually coercive behavior was assessed with items developed by Struckman-
Johnson et al. (2003). Specifically, participants were asked to indicate the number of
times over the course of the relationship their current partner had used each of 19
tactics to continue sexual contact despite the participants’ refusal. More specifically,
734 Violence Against Women 16(7)
participants were asked to estimate the number of times their partner “used any of the
following tactics to have sexual contact (genital touching, oral sex, or intercourse)
with you after you indicated no to his sexual advance.” The four types of tactics
assessed include sexual arousal (three items; for example, “continued to kiss and
touch you to arouse you” and “removed his clothing to arouse you”), emotional
manipulation and deception (eight items; for example, “tried to talk you into it by
repeatedly asking” and “told you a lie of some kind [e.g., how much he loved you]”),
exploitation of the intoxicated (two items; “took advantage of the fact that you were
already drunk or high” and “purposefully gave you alcohol or drugs”), and physical
force, threats, or harm (six items; for example, “blocked your retreat [e.g., closed,
locked, or stood blocking the door]” and “used physical restraint to hold you down or
sit on you”). Positive responses to these items were used to classify women’s partners
as sexually coercive. In addition, responses to each item were summed to create a total
score with adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = .76).
Childhood sexual abuse (CSA) was measured at Time 1 with items drawn from the
Computer-Assisted Maltreatment Inventory–Short Form (CAMI-SF; DiLillo, Fortier,
& Hayes, 2006). This self-report measure asks participants about developmentally
inappropriate sexual experiences before the age of 15. More specifically, participants
were asked if they experienced actual or attempted sexual touching, sexual kissing, or
attempted or completed oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse when they did not want to, by
a family member/relative or by a person 5 years older than them. Any positive reports
were used to classify individuals as having a history of CSA.
Adolescent sexual assault was assessed at Time 1 with the Sexual Experiences
Survey (SES; Koss & Oros, 1982; Testa, VanZile-Tamsen, Livingston, & Koss, 2004),
an 11-item self-report measure of respondents’ unwilling experiences of varying types
of sexual contact, including unwanted touching, sexual coercion, attempted rape, and
rape. Participants indicated how many times they have experienced each of the items
from a boy or man since age 15 but not with the current dating partner. Any nonzero
response to the attempted rape or rape questions on the SES reflected the presence of
past sexual assault.
Sexual satisfaction was assessed via the Index of Sexual Satisfaction (ISS; Hudson
et al., 1981), which is a 25-item self-report measure of respondents’ levels of global
satisfaction with sexual interactions with their current partners. A sample item is “Sex
is fun for my partner and me.” Respondents use a 5-point Likert-type scale (0 = rarely
or none of the time to 4 = most or all of the time). Responses were summed and higher
scores reflect greater sexual satisfaction. This scale was administered at Time 1 and
Time 2. The authors report evidence for reliability and validity. In the present study,
the index of internal consistency was good (Cronbach’s a = .87).
Procedure
Time 1 data were collected in a single research session lasting no more than 1 hr. Six
weeks after Time 1, participants were contacted via email through Survey Monkey
Katz and Tirone 735
with a link to a briefer follow-up survey assessing current relationship status and
sexual behavior over the past 6 weeks, including sexual compliance. Those who par-
ticipated in Time 2 earned US$10 as compensation; money was either retrieved from
a campus lab during designated hours or sent to participants via U.S. mail. All partici-
pants were debriefed and received referrals regarding free campus counseling services
as well as sexual assault and domestic violence hotlines.
Results
At Time 1, 40.8% (n = 31) of the sample reported one or more episodes of sexual
compliance with the current partner during the course of the relationship, and at Time
2, 22.1% (n = 17) reported sexual compliance during the past month. Of those who
reported Time 1 compliance, the average number of episodes was 5.81 (SD = 7.22). Of
those who reported Time 2 compliance, the average number of episodes was 2.18
(SD = 2.19). Unexpectedly, as shown in Table 1, women who complied at Time 2 were
significantly older than other women. Otherwise, compliant women were not distinct
from other women in terms of their demographic characteristics or previous sexual
victimization history.
The sample mean for partner coercive behavior based on total PRSP scores at Time 1
was 7.08 (SD = 13.14). Just over half of the sample, 52.6% (n = 40), reported one or
more instances of partner sexually coercive behavior, most commonly involving per-
sistent attempts at arousal (44.7%), followed by emotional manipulation and decep-
tion (28.9%), intoxication (7.9%), and force (1.3%). About 13% of the sample (n = 10)
reported past CSA. In contrast, 30.3% (n = 23) reported past sexual assault since age
15 not involving the current partner. The average scores for sexual satisfaction were
83.38 (SD = 10.89) at Time 1 and 83.93 (SD = 10.88) at Time 2, reflecting moderately
high satisfaction.
As reported in Table 1, past sexual victimization in childhood and adolescence were
both independent of women’s sexual compliance at Time 2. Furthermore, women’s
Table 1. Women’s Time 2 Sexual Compliance as a Function of Demographic Variables,
Victimization History, and Partner Sexually Coercive Behavior (N = 76)
Time 2 Sexual Compliance
Present (n = 17) Absent (n = 59) Test Statistic
Woman’s age (M, SD) 19.76 (1.20) 19.19 (1.00) t(74) = 2.02*
Male partner’s age (M, SD) 20.41 (1.70) 19.63 (3.30) t(74) = 0.94
Months in the relationship (M, SD) 25.50 (22.52) 20.72 (21.81) t(74) = 0.47
Any child sexual abuse (%, n) 17.60 (3) 11.90 (7) c2(1) = 0.39
Any adolescent sexual assault (%, n) 47.10 (8) 25.40 (15) c2(1) = 2.93
Any partner sexual coercion (%, n) 88.20 (15) 42.40 (25) c2(1) = 11.13**
Partner sexual coercion (M, SD) 13.35 (15.96) 5.22 (11.96) t(74) = 2.29*
*p < .05. **p < .01.
736 Violence Against Women 16(7)
sexual satisfaction at Time 2 did not vary as a function of past victimization in either
childhood or adolescence. Accordingly, past victimization was not controlled for in
subsequent analyses.
The primary study hypothesis was that partner sexually coercive behaviors at
Time 1 would predict women’s sexual compliance at Time 2. As shown in Table 1,
88.2% of women who reported Time 2 compliance had previously reported their
partners were coercive, as compared to 42.4% of women who reported no compli-
ance. Likewise, mean comparisons revealed that women who were compliant at Time 2
reported more frequent sexually coercive behaviors from partners at Time 1 than
noncompliant women. A logistic regression equation was calculated to predict Time 2
sexual compliance from the following Time 1 variables: women’s age, frequency of
sexual compliance over the course of the relationship, and the current partners’ sexu-
ally coercive behavior. Results are shown in Table 2. Only partner coercive behavior
significantly predicted women’s later sexual compliance. The odds for sexual com-
pliance at Time 2 were more than seven times greater for women who reported at
Time 1 that their partners were sexually coercive. Women whose partners had refused
to take no for an answer were much more likely to subsequently report willing con-
sent to unwanted sex.
Our second hypothesis was that the women’s compliance following partner sexu-
ally coercive behavior would predict diminished sexual satisfaction. Intercorrelations
among these study variables are reported in Table 3. A hierarchical multiple regression
was calculated to examine the hypothesized moderating effects of partner sexually
coercive behavior on the association between sexual compliance and women’s con-
current sexual satisfaction. Compliance and satisfaction at Time 1 were included as
control variables. Women’s age was not included because age was not significantly
associated with sexual satisfaction. Standardized beta weights and model characteris-
tics are reported in Table 4.
In a first block, sexual satisfaction, sexual compliance, and partner sexually coer-
cive behavior reported at baseline and women’s compliance reported at follow-up were
entered. As shown in Table 4, in the first block, only Time 1 sexual satisfaction and
Time 2 compliance predicted Time 2 satisfaction. The negative beta weight associated
with Time 2 compliance suggested that, after controlling for the other predictor vari-
ables, compliant women were less sexually satisfied. However, interpretation of this
Table 2. Logistic Regression Predicting Time 2 Compliance From Time 1 Age, Compliance,
and Partner Sexually Coercive Behavior (N = 76)
Time 1 Variable
Coefficient
Standard
Error
Adjusted Odds
Ratioa
95% Confidence
Interval
Age 0.18 0.30 1.34 0.73, 2.41
Compliance 0.08 0.06 1.08 0.97, 1.22
Partner sexual coercion 1.98 0.82 7.25* 1.39, 34.58
a. Odds ratios are adjusted for other terms included in the model.
*p < .05.
Katz and Tirone 737
main effect must be qualified by the interaction of Time 1 partner coercion × Time 2
women’s compliance entered in a second block. This significant interaction indicated
that Time 1 partner coercion moderated the effect of Time 2 compliance on women’s
sexual satisfaction.
To explicate this significant interaction, simple slopes analyses were conducted
(Aiken & West, 1991) at high and low levels of partner sexually coercive behavior. As
expected, there was a stronger association between frequency of compliant sex at
Time 2 and concurrent sexual satisfaction for participants at higher levels of Time 1
partner sexually coercive behavior (b = –.63, p < .001) than among those at lower
levels (b = –.33, p < .05). Although compliance was associated with less sexual satis-
faction for women generally, this association was particularly strong among women
who reported more frequent sexually coercive partner behavior.
Table 3. Zero-Order Correlations Among Women’s Compliance, Sexual Satisfaction, and
Partner Sexually Coercive Behavior Over Time (N = 76)
1 2 3 4
Time 1 variables
1. Compliance —
2. Sexual satisfaction –.19* —
3. Partner sexual coercion .32*** –.10 —
Time 2 variables
4. Compliance .57*** –.03 .32**** —
5. Sexual satisfaction –.24** .65**** –.10 –.13
*p < .06. **p < .05. ***p < .01. ****p < .001.
Table 4. Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Time 2 Sexual Satisfaction From Time
1 Partner Sexually Coercive Behavior, Time 2 Sexual Compliance, and Their Interaction,
Controlling for Time 1 Sexual Satisfaction and Compliance (N = 76)
Predictors bt F for Set Adjusted R2
Block 1 24.14 .54**
Time 1 sexual satisfaction .68 7.99***
Time 1 sexual compliance –.06 –0.07
Time 1 partner sexual coercion –.02 –0.22
Time 2 sexual compliance –.19 –2.31**
Block 2 19.48 .59***
Time 1 sexual satisfaction .73 8.82***
Time 1 sexual compliance –.05 0.59
Time 1 partner sexual coercion .09 0.99
Time 2 sexual compliance .23 1.42
Time 1 coercion × Time 2 compliance –.51 2.89**
**p < .05. ***p< .01.
738 Violence Against Women 16(7)
Next, predicted values for women’s sexual satisfaction were generated by substitut-
ing high and low values of each predictor variable into the regression equation. High
and low values were computed as the mean plus or minus one standard deviation of
the continuous measures of partner sexually coercive behavior at Time 1 and compli-
ance at Time 2. The predicted level of sexual satisfaction was lowest (76.60) among
women who more frequently complied with sex after having reported more frequent
partner sexually coercive behavior. In contrast, predicted values ranged from 78.80 to
88.62 for women who reported less frequent compliance at Time 2, less frequent part-
ner coercion at Time 1, or both.
Discussion
Results showed that dating women’s sexual compliance with partners most commonly
occurred within sexually coercive relationships. Initial reports of partner sexual
coercive behavior predicted women’s compliance 6 week later in both univariate and
multivariate analyses. This effect could not be explained by women’s past sexual
victimization. The association between partners’ tactics of sexual coercion and women’s
later compliance with those partners converges with Basile’s (1999) conceptualization
of sexual compliance, which she termed rape by acquiescence. Although women
comply with unwanted sex in the absence of immediate pressure, our results indicate
that most women consented to unwanted sex after learning that they would be pressured
if they refused.
It is noteworthy that the tactics of sexual coercion that participants typically
reported experiencing involved partner attempts to arouse them with continued sexual
touching or to emotionally manipulate/deceive them. In contrast, partners rarely
attempted sexual coercion involving intoxication or force. These findings converge
with past research showing that psychological rather than physical forms of coercive
sexual pressure are most commonly exerted by intimate partners (e.g., Ramisetty-
Mikler et al., 2007). Such behaviors may be common because exerting psychological
pressure for sex is often viewed as socially acceptable in a heterosexual relationship
context (e.g., Oswald & Russell, 2006) and because male social norms for heterosex-
ual interaction teach men to behave as if “no” means “keep trying” (e.g., Holland et al.,
2004) or even to believe “no means yes” (e.g., Osman, 2003). Such norms may explain
the higher rates of men’s use of sexually coercive tactics relative to women (e.g.,
Struckman-Johnson et al., 2003) and, in turn, the higher rates of sexual compliance
among heterosexual women relative to men (Impett & Peplau, 2003).
The high overall rates of partners’ sexually coercive behaviors based on women’s
reports could lead to a dismissal of such behaviors as “just sex” (Gavey, 2005). How-
ever, the observation that a behavior occurs frequently does not exonerate such behav-
ior as desirable or even acceptable:
Just because it might be normal for a man to repeatedly sexually pressure a
woman, and for a woman to agree to have sex in the absence of her own positive
desire, this does not mean we should sit by and cheer it on. (Gavey, 2005, p. 7)
Katz and Tirone 739
To the degree that this type of sexually coercive behavior constricts women’s sexual
decision making, as the current results suggest, such behavior may be implicated in a
variety of harmful consequences for women, including unplanned pregnancy and
STIs. Additional research is needed to identify women’s subjective reactions to dating
partners’ tactics of sexual coercion. Because exerting psychological pressure for sex
is common in relationships, individual women may feel annoyed, flattered, guilty, or
some combination of emotional responses. Regardless of their specific emotional
reactions, however, such behaviors teach women that, when their partners initiate
unwanted sex, consenting will provide the path of least resistance.
Importantly, our results show that not all women with sexually coercive partners go
along with unwanted sex. Additional studies are needed to identify factors that sensi-
tize women to submit to unwanted sex. For example, adherence to traditional female
gender roles may play a role. Past studies indicate that sexual compliance may be the
result of feeling pressured to be involved in sexual relationships with men, to engage
in sex to preserve these relationships (Walker, 1997), and to conform to traditional
gender expectations (Katz & Tirone, 2009). Insecure attachment styles may also be
implicated. Anxiously attached women may comply with unwanted sex due to fears
about the partner losing interest (Gentzler & Kerns, 2004; Impett & Peplau, 2002), and
avoidantly attached women may comply because they perceive themselves to be obli-
gated (Impett & Peplau, 2002).
Furthermore, an important caveat to our research is that not all sexual compliance
occurs following a partner’s use of sexually coercive pressure. Our sample included a
few women who denied partner sexual coercive behavior at Time 1 but who reported
choosing to comply with unwanted sex at Time 2. For these women, sexual compli-
ance may indeed reflect a benign, freely chosen, voluntary self-sacrifice as described
by several researchers (e.g., O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998). At the same time, it appears
that past research focused primarily on explaining women’s sexual compliance as a
function of personality factors that may have been subject to a potential third-variable
problem. That is, women with sexually coercive partners may develop the traditional
sex roles or attachment insecurities that have been identified as predictors of women’s
compliance. Future research simultaneously focused on both dispositional and situa-
tional variables associated with women’s sexual compliance is needed for a more com-
prehensive understanding of willing consent to unwanted sex.
Additional research is also needed to examine the consequences of sexual compli-
ance for women’s relationship functioning and individual mental health. We found
that women who reported compliance at Time 2 following partner coercion at Time 1
also reported lower sexual satisfaction than other women. This finding converges with
past research indicating that dating women’s sexual compliance, when motivated by
an attempt to avoid conflict or partner upset, is detrimental for women’s relationship
satisfaction (Katz & Tirone, 2009). Studies of avoidance motives and sexual interac-
tions more generally further suggest that avoidance motives are negatively associated
with relationship longevity (Impett, Peplau, & Gable, 2005). Future research should
address whether attempts to evade sexual coercion by willingly consenting to
unwanted sex ultimately lead to relationship dissolution.
740 Violence Against Women 16(7)
Limitations of the present findings should be noted. Our research was based on
convenience samples of primarily White female undergraduates in committed dating
relationships with men, and so findings may not generalize to more diverse samples or
types of relationships. Furthermore, because participants volunteered for studies of
“Dating and Sexual Interactions” and because rates of past sexual victimization were
quite high, our participants may not be representative of female undergraduates gener-
ally. Because both women and men engage in sexual compliance (Impett & Peplau,
2003) and sexually coercive behaviors (Struckman-Johnson et al., 2003), future
research should examine these study variables among women and men in both mixed
and same-sex relationships. Unexpectedly, we found that older participants were more
likely to comply with unwanted sex at follow-up. However, there were no significant
associations between compliance and partner age, length of relationship, or other
demographic or relationship characteristics. The association between women’s age
and later compliance is likely spurious given that this effect has not been reported in
the past literature, although, if replicable, explanations for this effect should be explored.
These caveats notwithstanding, our data provide strong evidence for the notion that
many sexually compliant women choose to go along with unwanted sex after learning
that refusing their partner may lead to sexual coercion. The high rates of sexual com-
pliance suggest that many young women do not, or do not feel free to, prioritize their
own sexual desire in sexual decision making. As such, sexual compliance represents a
disembodiment of women’s sexual desire (Hirshman, Impett, & Schooler, 2006).
Researchers interested in further explaining women’s sexual compliance and its con-
sequences must examine the relational context within which women comply to deter-
mine the degree to which compliance is freely chosen. More generally, our results
indicate that black-and-white conceptions of consensual sexual behavior obscure the
gray area of sexual compliance common in women’s lives.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge Amy Credit and Alyssa Infantino for their assistance with
data management.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
References
Abbey, A., BeShears, R., Clinton-Sherrod, A. M., & McAuslan, P. (2004). Similarities and dif-
ferences in women’s sexual assault experiences based on tactics used by the perpetrator.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 323-332.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Katz and Tirone 741
Basile, K. C. (1999). Rape by acquiescence: The ways in which women “give in” to unwanted
sex with their husbands. Violence Against Women, 9, 1036-1058.
Classen, C., Field, N. P., Koopman, C., Nevill-Manning, K., & Spiegel, D. (2001). Interpersonal
problems and their relationship to sexual revictimization among women sexually abused in
childhood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 495-509.
Daigle, L. E., Fisher, B. S., & Cullen, F. T. (2008). The violent and sexual victimization of
college women: Is repeat victimization a problem? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23,
1296-1313.
DiLillo, D., Fortier, M. A., & Hayes, S. A. (2006). Retrospective assessment of childhood
sexual and physical abuse: A comparison of scaled and behaviorally specific approaches.
Assessment, 13, 297-312.
Gavey, N. (2005). Just sex? The cultural scaffolding of rape. New York: Routledge.
Gentzler, A. L., & Kerns, K. A. (2004). Associations between insecure attachment and sexual
experiences. Personal Relationships, 11, 249-265.
Hirshman, C., Impett, E., & Schooler, D. (2006). Dis/embodied voices: What late adolescent
girls can teach us about objectification and sexuality. Sexuality Research and Social Policy,
3, 8-20.
Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Sharpe, S., & Thompson, R. (2004). The male in the head: Young
people, heterosexuality, and power. London: Tufnell Press.
Hudson, W. W., Harrison, D. F., & Crosscup, P. C. (1981). A short-form scale to measure sexual
discord in dyadic relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 17, 157-174.
Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2002). Why some women consent to unwanted sex with a dat-
ing partner: Insights from attachment theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 360-370.
Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2003). Sexual compliance: Gender, motivational, and relation-
ship perspectives. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 87-100.
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.
Katz, J., & Tirone, V. (2009). Women’s sexual compliance with male dating partners: Associa-
tions with investment in ideal womanhood and romantic well-being. Sex Roles, 60, 347-356.
Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual Experiences Survey: A research instrument investi-
gating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
50, 455-457.
Messman-Moore, T. L., & Long, P. J. (2000). Child sexual abuse and revictimization in the form
of adult sexual abuse, adult physical abuse, and adult psychological maltreatment. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 489-502.
O’Sullivan, L. F., & Allgeier, E. R. (1998). Feigning sexual desire: Consenting to unwanted
sexual activity in heterosexual dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 234-243.
Osman, S. (2003). Predicting men’s rape perceptions based on the belief that “no” really means
“yes.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 683-692.
Oswald, D. L., & Russell, D. L. (2006). Perceptions of sexual coercion in heterosexual dating
relationships: The role of aggressor gender and tactics. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 87-95.
Polusny, M. A., & Follette, V. M. (1995). Long term correlates of CSA: Theory and review of
the empirical literature. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 4, 143-166.
742 Violence Against Women 16(7)
Ramisetty-Mikler, S., Caetano, R., & McGrath, G. (2007). Aggression among White, Black,
and Hispanic couples in the U.S.: Alcohol use, physical assault, and psychological aggres-
sion as its correlates. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 33, 31-43.
Shotland, R. L., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Women’s “token resistant” and compliant sexual
behaviors are related to uncertain sexual intentions and rape. Personality and Psychology
Bulletin, 21, 226-236.
Sprecher, S., Hatfield, E., Cortese, A., Potapova, E., & Levitskaya, A. (1994). Token resistance
to sexual intercourse and consent to unwanted intercourse: College students’ dating experi-
ences in three countries. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 125-132.
Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., & Anderson, P. B. (2003). Tactics of sexual
coercion: When men and women won’t take no for an answer. Journal of Sex Research, 40,
76-86.
Testa, M., VanZile-Tamsen, C., Livingston, J. A., & Koss, M. P. (2004). Assessing women’s
experiences of sexual aggression using the Sexual Experiences Survey: Evidence for valid-
ity and implications for research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 256-265.
Walker, S. (1997). When “no” becomes “yes”: Why girls and women consent to unwanted sex.
Applied & Preventive Psychology, 6, 157-166.
Bios
Jennifer Katz is a licensed psychologist and associate professor of psychology at SUNY Col-
lege at Geneseo in upstate New York. Her general research interests focus on the sociocultural
context of women’s mental health.
Vanessa Tirone graduated with a bachelor’s degree in psychology from SUNY College at
Geneseo. She is now a graduate student in clinical psychology at the University of Tennessee,
Knoxville. Her research interests focus on trauma and women’s sexual functioning.
