Tactics of sexual coercion: when men and women won't take no for an answer.

THE PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL COERCION

Sexually coercive behavior, defined in this paper as the act of using pressure, alcohol or drugs, or force to have sexual contact with someone against his or her will, has been studied among young adult populations for decades. From 1950 through the 1980s, the research focused on female victims and male perpetrators. One of the most influential studies was by Koss, Gidycz, and Wisniewski (1987), who found that 15% of the women in a national sample of over 6,000 college students had experienced rape. About 4% of the men indicated that they had perpetrated rape. In this survey, like many others conducted during this time period, only women were asked about being victims, and only men were asked about being perpetrators of coercive sexual behavior (Allgeier, 2002; Struckman-Johnson & Anderson, 1998).

In the late 1980s, a small number of investigators began to ask men as well as women about their experiences as victims of sexual coercion. Struckman-Johnson (1988) documented that 16% of 268 men and 22% of 355 women surveyed at a university reported being forced to have sexual intercourse while on a date. In the 1990s and early 2000s, at least a dozen more studies that included both male and female sexual victims appeared in the literature. For example, Lottes (1991) discovered that 24% of the men and 35% of the women in a classroom sample of over 300 college students reported that they had been coerced into sexual intercourse. In a survey of 433 Canadian college students, O'Sullivan, Byers, and Finkelman (1998) found that 24% of the men and 42% of the women reported being pressured or forced into sexual contact in a heterosexual dating context in the past year. A survey of 221 high school seniors in New Zealand (Jackson, Cram, & Seymour, 2000) revealed that 67% of the boys and 77% of the girls reported that they had engaged in unwanted sexual activity.

TACTICS OF SEXUAL COERCION

The present paper is about gender differences in the tactics that are used in sexual coercion. In our review of the literature, we learned that men and women have been the victims of and have used a wide variety of coercive strategies for sexual contact. Most of the research has focused on the tactics men used to gain sexual access to women. Notably, Koss and her colleagues initiated a large body of research using the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Koss & Oros, 1982; Koss et al., 1987), which assessed a list of coercive tactics that men use to have sexual contact with women. For example, Koss et al. (1987) found that college women reported engaging in unwanted sexual intercourse because men had used verbal coercion (reported by 25% of the women), had threatened or used force (9%), had given the women alcohol or drugs (8%), and had misused authority (2%).

We found a small number of studies that examined the sexually coercive tactics used by women against men. Expanding upon research by McCormick (1979) on sexual influence strategies, O'Sullivan and Byers (1993) measured whether 112 women had used 44 positive, neutral, or negative strategies to obtain sex from a reluctant male partner. The most frequently reported behaviors were flirtation, touching, compliments, and removing clothing (cited by 45% to 54% of women). Least reported were acts such as trying to get men drank or stoned (cited by 5% of women) and using physical force (3% of women). Anderson and Aymami (1993) measured 212 college women's use of 24 tactics for initiating sexual contact with men. One of the most commonly reported tactics was attempting to arouse the partner (cited by 79% of women). However, about half of the women reported initiating sex with a drunken man, 15% reported getting a man drank or stoned, and 6% reported using physical force. In Germany, Krahe (2000) found that 9% of 248 sexually experienced women reported attempting to have or having sex with a man against his will. The strategies employed were exploitation of a man in an incapacitated state (reported by 6% of women), verbal pressure (3%), and physical force (2%).

A few studies have explored male victims' perspectives on sexually coercive tactics used by female perpetrators. Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson (1998) found that 43% of 318 college men had been subjected to at least one coercive sexual act with a woman since the age of 16. The most frequently cited tactics were verbal coercion (reported by 75% of male victims), being encouraged to get drunk (40%), and threats that the woman would withdraw her love (19%). Only 8% of male victims said that they were physically restrained by a woman. Surveying 182 college men, Fiebert and Tucci (1998) documented that 70% reported being subjected to some form of sexual coercion perpetrated by a woman in the past 5 years. Most of the coercive activities fell into categories labeled mild (e.g., 17% to 39% experienced unwanted sexual touching and kissing) and moderate (e.g., 24% had unwanted sex with an insistent woman). Severe coercion involving a woman's threats or physical force was reported by only 1% to 3% of men.

Numerous studies have compared the coercive tactics experienced by male and female victims. In a classic work, Muehlenhard and Cook (1988) examined gender differences in 51 reasons why college men and women engaged in unwanted sexual activity. The authors used factor analysis to create 13 categories of reasons for engaging in unwanted sexual activity, some of which reflected coercive tactics by the partner (e.g., verbal coercion by the partner) and some of which did not (e.g., peer pressure from the respondents' friends). Overall, they found that more women than men reported engaging in unwanted sexual activity. For example, more women than men reported engaging in unwanted sexual activity because of the partner's verbal coercion (reported by 34% of the women and 27% of the men) and physical coercion (reported by 31% of the women and 24% of the men). None of the reasons for engaging in unwanted sexual activity were reported by more men than women. However, more men than women reported engaging in unwanted sexual intercourse (as opposed to any unwanted sexual activity) for several of the reasons, including sexual enticement (reported by 57% of the men and 39% of the women) and intoxication (reported by 31% of the men and 21% of the women). No reasons for engaging in unwanted sexual intercourse were reported by more women than men.

In a study of 325 college students, Lane and Gwartney-Gibbs (1985) determined that 25% of the women compared with 8% of the men reported being pressured into intercourse by continual arguments. More women (17%) than men (5%) reported having intercourse due to deception, but equal percentages (12%) reported having intercourse unknowingly while intoxicated. More women (12%) than men (2%) reported being physically forced into sexual activity. Waldner-Haugrud and Magruder (1995) surveyed 422 college students about unwanted sexual behavior in a dating context. According to self reports, more women than men were subjected to tactics of detainment, persistent touching, lies, and being held down. More men than women reported being victimized by the tactics of blackmail and use of a weapon.

Offering an international comparison, Lottes and Weinberg (1996) found significant sex differences in nonphysical sexually coercive tactics ever perpetrated against nearly 1,000 American and Swedish college students. According to self-reports, the sexual coercion rates were higher in the American sample (50% for men and 69% for women) than the Swedish group (22% for men and 41% for women). In the U.S. group, more women than men reported that their partner had pressured them with continual arguments (54% vs. 28%, respectively), had told them lies (36% vs. 24%), or had gotten them drunk or stoned (40% vs. 28%). There were similar differences for the Swedish sample except that the same percentage of men and women (about 8%) reported that someone had gotten them drunk or stoned. In a sample of 182 medical students in New South Wales, McConaghy and Zamir (1995) found that 26% of the men and 31% of the women reported being subjected to sexual coercion as self-reported in a modified SES. Similar percentages of men and women had been subjected to most tactics (e.g., about 28% overall reported constant sexual arousal attempts by their partner). However, more women (16%) than men (7%) had been physically forced to engage in kissing and petting.

At a Canadian university, O'Sullivan et al. (1998) found that more women than men reported being the recipients of unwanted sex play (36% vs. 11%, respectively) and unwanted sexual intercourse (26% vs. 7%) due to continual arguments and pressure. There were no differences in the proportions of men and women who reported attempted or completed intercourse due to intoxication. Participant reports of incidents involving physical force were too few to be statistically analyzed. In a study that focused on alcohol use, Larimer, Lydum, Anderson, and Turner (1999) used a gender-neutral version of the SES to assess sexual coercion among 296 college students in Greek organizations. Similar percentages of men and women reported having unwanted sexual intercourse because they were pressured by continual arguments (about 7% overall) and were given alcohol and drugs (about 5% overall). However, for attempts at sexual intercourse, more women than men reported being given alcohol and drugs (17% vs. 9%) and being subjected to physical force (5% vs. 1%).

Finally, we found two studies that analyzed differences in tactics used by male and female perpetrators of sexual coercion. Surveying 353 college students, Hogben and Waterman (2000) measured the extent to which men and women used a variety of tactics to engage in sex with someone against his or her will. They found that more men than women reported having engaged in the behaviors of touching above clothing, removal of clothing, and verbal attempts to obtain intercourse. However, men and women did not differ significantly in their reported use of violence or threats of violence. Zurbriggen (2000) measured the extent to which 158 community members used 10 sexually coercive strategies. She found that similar percentages of men and women reported that they used tactics of complaining of sexual frustration (about 39% overall), threatening to end a relationship (about 18% overall), and getting a little drunk and forcing someone to have sex (about 9% overall). However, more men than women said that they gave the silent treatment (40% vs. 16%, respectively), got someone purposefully drunk for sex (32% vs. 18%), or threatened that their feelings of affection would change (25% vs. 11%).

SUMMARY AND CRITIQUE OF THE LITERATURE

To summarize, the preponderance of studies revealed that greater percentages of women than men had been subjected to the full range of tactics of sexual coercion from verbal pressure to physical force. The most commonly experienced tactics of sexual coercion, regardless of gender, appeared to be techniques of sexual arousal (e.g., persistent kissing and touching) and verbal pressure such as continual arguments. The least commonly experienced tactics were those involving physical force and harm. There is consistent evidence that more women than men were deceived for purposes of sexual access (e.g., Lottes & Weinberg, 1996; Waldner-Haugrud & Magruder, 1996). There are contrasting findings for the tactic of taking advantage of intoxicated persons. Although at least one study indicates that more women than men were subjected to this tactic (Lottes & Weinberg, 1996), some studies found no gender difference (e.g., Lane & Gwartney-Gibbs, 1985; O'Sullivan et al., 1998). A majority of studies indicated that more women than men were subjected to tactics involving physical force, yet several studies found few differences or numbers of reports too small to analyze (e.g., Hogben & Waterman, 2000; O'Sullivan et al., 1998).

Our conclusions about the literature are tentative for several reasons. Foremost, the studies upon which they are based used different definitions of sexual coercion. Whereas some authors examined pressured and forced sexual contact (e.g., O'Sullivan et al., 1998; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1998), others looked at instances of unwanted sexual activity (Jackson et al., 2000; Muehlenhard & Cook, 1988). As noted by O'Sullivan and Allgeier (1998), unwanted sex may not be the same as nonconsensual sex. A related problem is that noncoercive and coercive tactics were combined in several studies. For example, some strategies presented by Anderson and Aymami (1993) were noncoercive in the context of sexual initiation (e.g., touching and kissing, asking), whereas others were clearly coercive (e.g., using physical restraint).

Another complication is that the types and specificity of tactics varied across studies. Some studies used a small number of broad and somewhat vague categories related to verbal pressure, intoxication, or physical force (e.g., Krahe, 2000; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1998), while others employed a large number of carefully defined acts (e.g., Anderson & Aymami, 1993; Muehlenhard & Cook, 1988). Several researchers (e.g., Koss et al., 1987; Latimer et al., 1999) assessed intoxication tactics with an SES item that has been criticized for being unclear about the context in which alcohol and drugs are given (see Allgeier, 2002). Only a few researchers distinguished between being purposefully intoxicated by another person who hoped to obtain sex and being exploited while already intoxicated (e.g., Anderson & Aymami, 1993). In addition, only a few researchers measured minor forms of physical force such as detainment as well as more severe forms such as holding and pinning someone down (e.g., Muehlenhard & Cook, 1988; Waldner-Haugrud & Magruder, 1996).

THE PRESENT STUDY

We designed the present research to study gender differences in the experience and use of tactics of sexual coercion using methods that would remedy many of these complications. Our first objective was to study tactics that could clearly be defined as sexually coercive, asking both women and men about both experiencing and using these tactics. We chose to study a behavior that we termed "postrefusal sexual persistence," defined as the act of pursuing sexual contact with a person after he or she has refused an initial advance. In our thinking, all acts of postrefusal sexual persistence are sexually coercive in that the receiver has already indicated that he or she does not consent to the action. While acts such as removing a receiver's clothing or making repeated requests would be considered noncoercive in an initial sexual advance, the same behaviors can be defined as coercive if the person continues to do them after the receiver has said no.

A second objective was to organize tactics that have been identified in past research into categories that reflect increasing levels of sexual exploitation. Based on our past research (e.g., Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1998) and a review of the literature, we proposed four levels of tactics.

Level 1 includes nonverbal sexual arousal tactics, such as persistent touching and kissing and clothing removal, that are intended to change the receiver's mind about saying no to sex. Because these tactics are normative acts of sexual seduction in consensual situations and do not involve verbal pressure or duplicity, use of drugs, or physical force, we considered them to be the least exploitative of sexually persistent acts.

Level 2 consists of tactics of emotional manipulation and lies. This category includes tactics that are typically termed verbal or psychological pressure in the literature, such as repeated requests, questions about a person's sexuality, threats of breaking up the relationship, deception, and blackmail. These tactics are exploitative in that they are intended to wear down the receiver's resistance, to take unfair advantage of the receiver's needs and desires for a relationship, and to deceive and trick the receiver into having sexual contact.

Level 3 includes tactics related to alcohol and drug intoxication, such as taking advantage of someone who is already drunk or purposely getting someone intoxicated to obtain sexual contact. We regard these tactics as a higher level of exploitation than manipulation or lies because the receivers may be too inebriated to consider requests, to give knowledgeable consent, to detect deception, or to physically escape the situation.

Level 4, tactics of physical force and harm, is the highest level of exploitation because the receiver is forced to engage in behaviors against her or his will. Injury and harm may occur. Depending upon the sexual outcome, behaviors in Levels 3 and 4 meet the legal definition of rape in many states (Koss et al., 1987).

A final objective of our study was to gain understanding of the dynamics of postrefusal sexual persistence by examining participants' descriptions of recent experiences. We used structured and open-ended questions to assess relationships between receivers and perpetrators, how the tactics were employed, and how participants were affected by the incidents.

METHOD

Participants

We distributed the survey to 656 college students: 213 men and 247 women from a Midwestern university and 62 men and 134 women from a Southern university. The average age was 21 years for men and 20 years for women. The survey was administered anonymously to students in general psychology, social psychology, sex roles, and human sexuality classes. We used separate survey forms for male and female participants so that men were asked about experiences with women, and women were asked about experiences with men. Although same-sex experiences were excluded, we presumed that all participants, regardless of sexual orientation, could encounter postrefusal sexual persistence with a person of the opposite sex. Volunteer participants were asked to complete the survey in the privacy of their homes and to return it to the next class meeting. This procedure prevents a problem in sexual coercion research in which men in classroom administrations tend to leave a large number of items blank (Senn, Verberg, Desmarais, & Wood, 2000). Over 95% of questionnaires were returned. A majority of the participants (82%) indicated on the questionnaire that they were Caucasian; 10% identified as African American, 3% as Hispanic, 2% as Asian, 2% as Native American, and 1% as mixed race.

Measures

Postrefusal sexual persistence. This item read "Since the age of 16, how many times has a male [female; always the opposite sex from the participant] used any of the tactics on the list below to have sexual contact (genital touching, oral sex, or intercourse) with you after you have indicated `no' to his [her] sexual advance?" Participants were further instructed to write in the space next to each tactic the number of times, to the best of their memory, that a male or female had used a tactic against them. If participants had never been subjected to a tactic, they were instructed to fill in a zero (0) in the space.

Tactics. We selected 19 tactics from the literature, with the largest number abstracted from the list used by Anderson and Aymami (1993). We included three tactics in the sexual arousal category: "continued to kiss and touch you to arouse you"; "removed his [her] clothing to arouse you"; and "removed some of your clothing to arouse you." The category of emotional manipulation and lies had eight tactics: "tried to talk you into it by repeatedly asking"; "told you a lie of some kind (e.g., how much he [she] liked or loved you)"; "questioned your sexuality (e.g., he [she] said you were impotent or gay)"; "threatened to break up with you"; "told you he [she] would blackmail you"; "threatened to harm himself [herself]"; "used his [her] authority or position (e.g., boss, babysitter, teacher)"; and "was an adult at least 5 years older than you." The intoxication category had two tactics: "took advantage of the fact that you were already drank or high," and "purposefully gave you drugs or alcohol." The physical force category had six tactics: "blocked your retreat (e.g., closed, locked, or stood blocking the door)"; "used physical restraint to hold you down or sit on you"; "tied you up"; "threatened to physically harm you"; "physically harmed you (e.g., hit, slapped, or bit)"; and "threatened you with a weapon."

Participants were then asked to answer questions about the most recent incident of sexual persistence they had experienced (if any). Participants were asked to circle all tactics that had been used in the incident from a second list of the 19 tactics. The next item read, "In your own words, please explain how this happened. What exactly did the male or female do when he or she tried to have sexual contact with you?" We then asked participants multiple-choice questions about their relationship with the perpetrator and what sexual activity took place. Participants rated the extent to which the incident affected them and their relationship with the perpetrator and wrote descriptions of these effects.

In the next section, we asked participants the same questions about their own use of postrefusal sexual persistence tactics since age 16 and in the most recent incident. All language was changed to indicate that the participant was the one who carried out the tactic against a person of the other gender.

RESULTS

Receivers of Postrefusal Sexual Persistence

We analyzed data using chi-square tests for differences among the distributions of participants who had and had not been receivers of the tactics. For scoring, participants who indicated that a tactic had been used on them one time or more were assigned a "yes" or 1 value. Those who indicated that a tactic had never been used were assigned a "no" or 0 value. Chi-square tests determined that the distributions of sexual persistence experiences for receivers did not differ between the two university samples, so the two samples were combined. See Table 1 for a summary of the number and percentages of participants who had experienced the tactics since age 16 (tactics are grouped by the four categories of exploitation level). The results revealed that 159 men (58% of the male sample) and 297 women (78% of the female sample) had been subjected to at least one tactic of sexual persistence, [chi square](1, N = 656) = 31.20, p < .0001.

Most frequently reported tactics across genders. The tactics category reported most frequently was sexual arousal, with 65% of all participants being subjected to at least one experience. Within this category, persistent kissing and touching was the most cited tactic (62% of all participants). Emotional manipulation and deception was the next most frequently reported category, with 60% of participants being subjected to at least one experience. Within this category, participants cited the specific tactics of repeated requests (54%) and telling lies (34%) most often. Intoxication was the third most frequently reported category, with 38% of all participants being subjected to at least one tactic. More participants reported being taken advantage of while already intoxicated (37%) than being purposely intoxicated (19%). The category with the lowest frequency of reports was physical force and harm, with 28% of participants being subjected to at least one tactic. The most frequently reported acts were having the retreat route blocked (reported by 20% of participants), being physically restrained (17%), and being harmed (8%). Less than 2% of participants reported that weapons were used against them.

Gender differences in receivers' experiences of tactics. We conducted chi-square tests to assess differences in the percentages of men and women who reported being subjected to specific tactics within a category, to at least one tactic within each category, and to any of the tactics (see Table 1). Using Bonferroni's correction, we controlled for inflated alpha levels resulting from 46 chi-square tests (including receiver and perpetrator comparisons) by requiring a p level of .001 to qualify as significant at an alpha level of .05. Results revealed that more women (73%) than men (54%) reported being subjected to at least one sexual arousal tactic. Within this category, more women (71%) than men (50%) cited persistent kissing and touching. A greater percentage of women (71%) than men (44%) reported being subjected to at least one tactic of emotional manipulation or lies. Within this category, more women than men reported repeated requests (66% vs. 37%, respectively) and being told lies (42% vs. 22%).

More women than men (44% vs. 30%) reported experiencing at least one intoxication tactic. This difference held for cases in which the participant was already intoxicated (42% vs. 30%) and for cases in which the perpetrator purposefully intoxicated the participant (25% vs. 11%). There was no significant difference between the percentages of women (30%) and men (25%) who reported being subjected to at least one tactic of physical force and harm. However, within this category, a greater percentage of women than men reported being subjected to physical restraint (22% vs. 9%) and being threatened with harm (6% vs. 1%). The chi-square test for gender differences in being threatened with a weapon was unreliable due to small cell sizes.

Perpetrators of Postrefusal Sexual Persistence

As shown in Table 1, 118 men (43% of the male sample) and 101 women (26% of the female sample) reported having perpetrated at least one tactic of sexual persistence, [chi square] (1, N = 656) = 19.95, p < .001.

Most frequently reported tactics across genders. Although there were fewer perpetrators than receivers, the two groups showed similar patterns for the most frequently occurring tactics. For perpetration of sexual persistence, the most frequently reported category was sexual arousal (32% of all participants). Within the category, kissing and touching was the most used tactic (29% of participants). The second most frequently reported category was emotional manipulation and lies; 22% reported using at least one such tactic. Within this category, 20% reported using repeated requests, and 8% reported using lies. Only 8% of participants said that they had used at least one intoxication tactic, with 8% taking advantage of an intoxicated person and 3% using purposeful intoxication. Only 3% of participants reported using a tactic in the physical force and harm category.

Gender differences in use of tactics. More men than women reported using at least one tactic in the sexual arousal category (40% vs. 26%, respectively). Within this category, more men than women reported persistent kissing and touching (39% vs. 23%) and removing the receivers' clothing (28% vs. 15%). More men than women (32% vs. 15%) also reported using at least one tactic of emotional manipulation and lies. Within this category, more men than women reported using repeated requests (29% vs. 14%) and lying (16% vs. 3%). The chi-square tests for tactics of breaking up, blackmail, self-harm, position of authority, and authority of age were unreliable due to small cell sizes.

For the category of intoxication, more men (13%) than women (5%) reported using at least one tactic. The difference held for taking advantage of an intoxicated person (13% vs. 5%) and for purposely getting someone intoxicated (6% vs. 1%). There was no significant difference in the percentage of men (5%) and women (3%) who reported the use of at least one force tactic. Because of small cell sizes, the chi-square tests were unreliable for the specific tactics of tying, using physical harm, threatening harm, and using a weapon.

Variables Related to Most Recent Incidents

There were no gender differences for the relationship variable among the receivers or among the perpetrators. Half of the receivers reported being with an acquaintance, friend, or new date, and 38% reported being with a boyfriend, girlfriend, steady date, or fiance. A majority of perpetrators (58%) reported being with a steady partner, and 30% reported being with acquaintances or new partners. Fewer than 5% of all incidents occurred with strangers. There were no gender differences for sexual outcome of the most recent incident among the receivers or among the perpetrators. The most recent incident resulted in sexual intercourse for 48% of receivers and 55% of perpetrators.

Written Descriptions

Free response descriptions of most recent incidents were provided by 375 receivers (131 men and 244 women) and 174 perpetrators (95 men and 79 women). We sorted the descriptions according to the most exploitative tactics that were used in an incident (respondents circled all tactics that were used in the most recent incident). Our intent was not to conduct a systematic content analysis of the descriptions, but to record the variety of ways the tactics were carded out.

What follows is our summary of the respondents' descriptions of incidents grouped according to four levels of sexual exploitation. When appropriate, we use the results from Table 1 to quantify some of the gender differences. The tactics are illustrated with verbatim descriptions of incidents collected in the questionnaires. Spelling and grammar errors are left intact. We also summarize descriptions of the context and effects of the incidents.

Level 1: Sexual arousal. The incident usually began when the perpetrator either asked for sex or began touching and kissing the receiver. When the receiver expressed his or her refusal, the perpetrator usually responded first with persistent touching and kissing and removal of clothing. Leg, back, and genital massages were frequently mentioned in descriptions.

The following happened between a woman and a male friend. No sexual activity took place. The woman did not comment on the effects of the incident.

   He came over, had some drinks, helped me pack some of my
   kitchen stuff (was moving). He sat down behind me and massaged
   my shoulders. Then began hitting on me verbally, as well as
   physically. I ended it before very much time passed and it could go
   any further.

Another woman wrote about what happened with a boyfriend. The outcome was sexual touching.

   We left a party & went to park. He was on top of me kissing me
   & stuff & trying to take all of my clothes off. He kept putting my
   hands down his pants & I kept pulling away. I made up some excuse for
   us to leave.

A man wrote about the following experience with a female acquaintance. Only sexual touching occurred. He reported that the incident hurt their friendship.

   We were at her parents house getting intoxicated. She went to "go
   take a shower," but came out of the bathroom with only a robe on.
   She removed it and was naked and tried to grope me.

Another man described what happened with a female friend. The outcome was sexual intercourse. He reported that the incident ruined their friendship.

   She asked me to bring her to the bank to get some money which
   was close to my house. Then she asked if I wanted something to
   eat I said yes, so we went to my apartment where she tried to kiss
   me. I told her to quit. She then grabbed my genitals and I quickly
   removed her hand. She then took off her clothes and said take me.
   I laughed at her. She asked why didn't I want her. I replied
   because I have a girlfriend. Then she kept pushing the issue until
   I gave in.

The perpetrator's perspective was given by a woman who said that she had persuaded reluctant men on many occasions. In this instance, the man was an acquaintance, and the outcome was sexual intercourse. She said that the incident had no bad effects on her.

   I told him how sexy he was & that he turned me on. And asked
   for sex. He refused. I retreated for a while but then continued to
   ask & say erotic things to him (putting ideas in his head) and
   every chance I could I would touch his genitals or buttox.

Level 2: Emotional manipulation and lies. The most common form of emotional manipulation experienced by men and women was repeated requests. As shown in Table 1, about twice as many men as women made repeated requests. One reason, we speculate, is that men are more practiced at verbalizing their desire in their role as sexual initiators. Perhaps women are not as comfortable as men with making direct sexual requests. As illustrated in the descriptions below, men and women often used repeated requests in conjunction with sexual arousal techniques.

According to descriptions, perpetrators often used deception when the tactics of sexual arousal and repeated requests failed to overcome the receivers' refusal. As shown in Table 1, about twice as many women as men reported being lied to, and about five times as many men as women reported lying. Giving truth to an old stereotype (Zilbergeld, 1978), the lies told by men were usually false claims of love or affection. Another lie told by older men was that they were the same age as the college women. Presumably, this made the men seem more trustworthy. Men broke promises about not inserting their penises and told tales of "blue balls" and other peculiarities about their sexual anatomy and functioning.

The following woman wrote about a lie told by her boyfriend. The outcome was sexual touching.

   Started kissing me, then he said that I couldn't get pregnant
   because he never had an ejaculation. I still told him no after he
   asked me several times to have sex.

The woman said that she broke up with the man after this happened several times.

Another woman described being deceived by a male acquaintance. The outcome was sexual intercourse. She reported that the incident had no negative effects.

   He kissed and touched me in private places. He performed oral
   sex on me. He was begging and trying to trick me by saying it was
   his finger. It was his penis though. Afterwards, I threw him off of
   me.

Some women reported being manipulated emotionally by men who told them that they were "abnormal" to refuse because "everybody is doing it." Women were warned that their relationships with the men would end if they did not have sex. A few women were told that sex is what good friends do for each other or that sex with a new person is the best way to get over a breakup. Women were complimented by men, were told that they were the right kind of gift or the man's fantasy, or were told that they would be respected in the morning.

In the following description, a male perpetrator explained his manipulation tactic with a female acquaintance. The outcome was sexual touching.

   I first got her in my bed & started to kiss her, but after awhile
   she didn't want to so I stopped & then I told her exactly what she
   wanted to hear. (she asked me what I look for `in a girl'). Then we
   started to kiss & she stopped my 1st attempt at her breast, & after
   I tried again she let me & after 3 attempts she let me in her pants.

He wrote that the woman hated him afterwards. He regretted his action and subsequently stopped trying when a woman said no.

Another man wrote about a lie that he did not mean to tell to a female acquaintance. The outcome was sexual intercourse.

   It was like this: She, before engaging in sex, asked me if it wasn't
   just a one-night stand. I told her no, it wasn't. At the time I
   thought I meant it but in the morning I didn't feel that way. Maybe
   the liquor?

The man said that they never spoke again. He added that he no longer started a relationship that he did not intend to finish.

Men were deceived by women who claimed to be in love with them or to care about them. Men's emotions were manipulated by women who complimented them, questioned their masculinity or heterosexuality, offered them sex as a perk of friendship, and asked them why they (the women) were not good enough or pretty enough or loved enough for sex.

In the excerpt below, a woman explained how she manipulated her boyfriend. The outcome was sexual intercourse.

   We were alone together and he didn't want to have sex cause he
   wanted it to be special. I felt rejected, telling him "what it's not
   special enough that it's just you & me." I started crying and
   basicly guilted him into having sex w/me.

The woman reported that their relationship was hurt. She said that much later she came to regret that she had hurt someone.

Several men were blackmailed by women. In the following case, a man had sexual intercourse with an ex-girlfriend:

   We had gone out for the previous two years and recently broken
   up. I had a new girlfriend of about four months, but cheated on her
   with my ex once before. My ex came over and tried to make out
   or have sex with me. I refused and she told me she would tell my
   girlfriend about last time if I didn't have sex with her. I gave in.

The man added that his ex-girlfriend told his current girlfriend about the incident and he never spoke to either one again.

Some men encountered threats of suicide and self-harm when they turned down women. One man wrote about his ex-girlfriend. The outcome was sexual touching. He said that the incident hurt their relationship.

   Entered my apt. to discuss recent break up, began to get real
   "handsy." Stated that if I didn't stop the pain by having sex with
   her she would find a way to "end it all." I could only assume she
   meant herself.

Level 3: Exploitation of the intoxicated. As shown in Table 1, 30% of the men and 42% of the women reported being sexually exploited when they were already intoxicated. According to written descriptions, receivers were often lured to an isolated area, such as a bedroom at a party house or outside away from the crowd. In numerous instances, the perpetrators simply waited for the receivers to pass out in a convenient bedroom. As documented in Table 1, 19% of participants reported that they were purposefully intoxicated, with the percentage of female receivers being double that of male receivers. According to descriptions, perpetrators accomplished this by buying drink after drink for receivers, engaging the receivers in drinking games, and, rarely, drugging drinks.

Here is one woman's description of how a male friend took advantage of her. The outcome was sexual touching. She reported that the incident hurt their relationship.

   I was drunk at his house & he told me I could sleep in his room.
   He left the room for awhile & he came back & locked the door.
   He started kissing me & I told him to stop. He started to kiss me
   again. I told him to leave me alone very loudly & he finally did.

Some exploited women were so drunk that they had little memory of what happened, as in the following case. The woman was with an acquaintance, and the outcome was sexual intercourse. She said that the incident had a very negative effect on her sex life.

   I was very intoxicated and I don't remember the details. He was
   just very pressuring; he kept trying to talk me into it and messing
   around until I didn't have the ability to resist anymore.

Another woman wrote about being purposely drugged by an acquaintance. The outcome was sexual intercourse. She reported that the incident had a very negative effect on her dating and sex life.

   He gave me a drink that had drugs in it. I passed out and awoke
   while he was on top of me having sex.

A common scenario for male receivers was being led to a bed or being joined in bed by a female perpetrator who tried to arouse him by removing his clothing or initiating oral sex. Sometimes, the woman got on top of an aroused man and inserted his penis. In some cases, inebriated men became so aroused that they became a willing participant in the sex. In the following case, a man described how an acquaintance took advantage of his intoxicated state. The outcome was sexual intercourse. He said that the incident had a negative effect on him.

   Alcohol was involved. She undressed me, tried to arouse me by
   touching my genitals, oral sex, and trying to force me inside of
   her.

Several men wrote that they were taken advantage of by women who were sometimes undesirable to them and who wanted to start a relationship with them. One female perpetrator reflected this motive in her description of sexually touching a drunken man:

   I liked this guy and I thought the only way we'd ever hook up is
   if we got drunk and fooled around.

The woman wrote that no relationship developed as a consequence. She added that she came to realize that a relationship should be based on more than just a drunken one-night stand.

One man reported that he was purposefully intoxicated by a female acquaintance. He said that the incident did not have a negative effect on him.

   We were drunk and she kept buying me drinks. Later she grabbed
   my crotch & asked if it turned me on. Then unzipped my pants &
   proceeded with oral sex.

Another man described how a female stranger used multiple strategies, including purposeful intoxication, to have sex with him. Sexual intercourse was the outcome.

   At a party, she came up and began talking to me. I was already
   drinking some at the time. While playing cards, she talked me into
   finishing several of her drinks and beers. She said there was
   another party, and convinced me to go. I was too drunk to drive
   so she drove us. The "party" seemed to lack other people. After
   about 1/2 hour of kissing/making out, I was tired and wanted to go
   home. She said no and told me she wanted to have sex. I said no,
   but she continued to kiss me and try to talk me into it. When she
   produced a condom, I gave in.

The man wrote that he was a virgin at the time and that he felt somewhat used afterwards.

Level 4: Physical force and harm. According to Table 1, similar percentages of men and women (about 20%) reported that someone tried to block their retreat, a minor form of physical force. According to participants' descriptions, the most common acts were when perpetrators stood in front of doors, locked doors, or locked car doors. About twice as many women as men reported being physically restrained, a more serious act.

In the following case, the woman was with an acquaintance whom she had turned down for sex when she was sober. She said that she ended the friendship after it happened.

   I was at a party and I was drunk but still knew what I was doing.
   He asked me to go for a walk with him. I told him I would go but
   we were just going to walk down the street and back. He made
   sure my glass was full before we left. He talked me into jumping
   on a trampoline & he then pushed me down and pulled my pants
   down & forced his penis into me. Then told me that if I told anyone
   they won't believe me.

Another woman wrote how an acquaintance physically forced her into sexual intercourse. She said that she avoided him afterwards.

   We were all drinking (I was with my older sister). This guy
   offered to bring me to go get cigarettes. Already being drunk I
   said yes. Trusting this guy. Well we never made it to the store. He
   brought me to the lake. That's when he brought himself on me. He
   was to strong. I couldn't get him off.

In the following case, a woman described how she was harmed by a stranger. The outcome was sexual intercourse.

   Forced himself on me after a few drinks in a bar. When I tried to
   leave in my car (intoxicated) he climbed in and agressively
   attacked me sexually leaving numerous bruises on my backside.
   He kept slapping me on my ass, hurting me repeatedly.

The woman wrote that the man tried unsuccessfully to contact her again for a date. She added that she quit drinking.

The male perpetrators' descriptions of force tactics were sparse. Not many men reported using a force tactic, and those who did often left out descriptions, wrote about their regrets rather than about the incident, or cited memory loss due to intoxication. In the following example, the man was with a female acquaintance.

   This girl and I occasionaly got together and had intercourse. Once
   when I was very drunk, she said we had anal intercourse when she
   wasn't willing. I don't remember this part of the night no matter
   how hard I try. Fortunatly I don't drink at all these days.

The man reported that their relationship was hurt. He added that the incident caused him to become more sensitive and passive when having sex with women.

Women were unlikely to use high levels of physical force with male receivers. Instead, they occasionally tried to grab and hold on to men, push them down on beds and sit or lay on them, and tie them up. Here is a description from a man who was physically restrained by a woman he had previously dated. He said that the incident had no effects on their limited relationship.

   We had "made out" the weekend before, but I didn't want to continue
   any further because I was already dating a different girl. She
   got drunk and so did I, she wanted to "hook up again." But I
   thought it was a bad idea. She pinned me down at one point (it
   was kind of thrilling) but I left.

In several instances, women bit, pinched, slapped, and hit male receivers. In some cases, a woman's harmful act appeared to be a means of persuasion; in others it seemed to be a way of "punishing" a man for refusing her. In this example, the man was with an acquaintance. No sexual activity occurred. He reported that the incident ended their friendship.

   I already had a girlfriend and she tried to have sex with me. I told
   her no and she kept kissing me and touching me. She kept asking
   and trying to make me have sex with her. I was drunk and tried to
   leave. She stood in front of the door and after awhile she slapped
   me and let me go calling me names as I walked away.

Female perpetrator descriptions of using force tactics were rare. In this example, the woman was with a male acquaintance. The outcome was sexual touching.

   I locked the room door that we were in. I kissed and touched him.
   I removed his shirt and unzipped his pants. He asked me to stop.
   I didn't. Then, I sat on top of him. He had had two beers but wasn't
   drunk.

She wrote that the man refused to speak to her or get near her again after it happened.

DISCUSSION

A major finding of our study is that a form of sexual coercion that we call postrefusal sexual persistence is a fairly common experience among our college student sample. Nearly 70% of the participants had been subjected to at least one tactic of postrefusal sexual persistence since the age of 16. One third of our participants said that they had used a tactic. We found that the most frequently reported tactics were sexual arousal and emotional manipulation and lies: categories that we consider to be less exploitative than intoxication and physical force. However, well over a third of our participants had been sexually exploited while intoxicated, and over one fourth of our participants had been subjected to a tactic of physical force.

Our study is consistent with past research that has shown that women are more likely than men to report being sexually coerced (e.g., Byers & O'Sullivan, 1998). More women than men were subjected to at least one tactic of sexual arousal, emotional manipulation and lies, and exploitation due to intoxication. Although there was no difference in the percentage of men and women who had been subjected to at least one tactic categorized as physical force, a greater percentage of women than men had been subjected to the specific tactics of physical restraint and threats of harm.

Our study is also consistent with past research (e.g., Struckman-Johnson & Anderson, 1998) in finding that substantial percentages of men were subjected to the sexually persistent behavior of female perpetrators. Our study found that women generally used gentler or less exploitative tactics than men did when confronted with a sexual refusal. That is, women more than men appeared to restrict their behavior to tactics of sexual arousal and repeated requests. Still, moderate percentages of women reportedly engaged in deception, taking advantage of intoxicated men, and blocking men's retreat. However, reports of women engaging in serious acts of physical restraint or causing serious harm were uncommon.

In some respects, we found more similarities than differences in the ways that men and women were subjected to sexual persistence. Statistical tests revealed significant gender differences for only 7 of the 19 tactics. For example, approximately equal percentages of men and women were subjected to the tactics of having their clothes removed by a perpetrator, being threatened with a breakup, having their sexuality questioned, having their retreat blocked, and being physically harmed.

Our results are consistent with past research that indicates a strong relationship between drinking and sexual coercion (e.g., Latimer et al., 1999; Tewsbury & Mustaine, 2001). Nearly 40% of the participants in our study fell victim to sexual exploitation due to intoxication. We surmise that this tactic is used because it can be so easily accomplished by both men and women. Perpetrators do not have to worry about their attractiveness to the target, what to say, or how to prevent the target from leaving. One idea for future research would be to explore the motives of individuals who use specific tactics such as intoxication to gain sexual access to others.

Our research underscored the problems that result from sexually coercive behavior. We found that many of our victims of postrefusal sexual persistence reported long-lasting negative effects from the incidents. In particular, we were struck by the number of respondents who reported in their written descriptions that romantic relationships and friendships were mined by an incident of postrefusal sexual persistence.

One limitation of our research is that participants were asked to report incidents that had happened since the age of 16. It is possible that their recollections of postrefusal sexual persistence were influenced by the passage of time. In addition, some participants' memories of specific incidents may have been influenced by alcohol consumed at the time of the incident.

Another limitation is that our four categories of sexual exploitation may not be hierarchical as we propose. For example, one could argue that our Level 1 tactic of sexually persistent touching is equally or more exploitative than verbal coercion. This question could be investigated in future research by having respondents rate the perceived exploitation value of different tactics of sexual coercion.

Our study raises an interesting question about the disparity between the relatively large number of participants who reported being receivers of sexual persistence and the much smaller number who reported being perpetrators. To reiterate a question asked by many researchers in this area (e.g., Anderson & Sorensen, 1999; Lottes, 1991), who is committing the sexual persistence reported by our receivers? It could be that a small number of perpetrators are committing acts with numerous partners or that receivers are socializing with a population not included in our survey. It is also possible that participants did not report perpetration due to social undesirability of the acts. Our research method may have contributed to this effect: Respondents who were first asked to report having a tactic used against them may have been reluctant to then report that they had used such tactics.

Another explanation is that participants did not perceive their behaviors as tactics of sexual persistence. Many of our participant perpetrators qualified their behaviors as playful or beneficial, indicating that the behaviors were intended to improve their relationships. Numerous female perpetrators and some male perpetrators wrote that their partners changed their minds and were pleased to have sex. After reading so many receivers' complaints, we wonder if some of our perpetrators were unaware of the negative effects of their behavior. These speculations and others that may explain the receiver-perpetrator gap are ripe for future research.

Table 1. Tactics of Postrefusal Sexual Persistence Experienced and
Perpetrated by College Men and Women

                             Men            Women
                          experiencing   experiencing
                           the tactic     the tactic
Tactic                      N = 275        N = 381

                           n        %     n        %      [chi
                                                         square]

Sexual arousal
  Persistent kissing
    and touching          138     50.5   269    70.8      27.7 *
  Perpetrator taking
    off own clothes       113     41.1   140    36.8       1.2
  Perpetrator taking
    off target's
    clothes               104     37.8   190    50.0       9.6
  One or more of the
    above                 149     54.2   278    73.0      24.8 *

Emotional manipulation and deception
  Repeatedly asking       101     36.9   250    65.8      53.6 *
  Telling lies             59     21.5   161    42.4      31.0 *
  Using authority of
    older age              24      8.7    51    13.4       3.5
  Questioning target's
    sexuality              21      7.6    35     9.2       0.5
  Threatening to
    break up               12      4.4    36     9.5       6.1
  Using authority of
    position                9      3.3    20     5.3       1.5
  Threatening self-harm    15      5.5    14     3.7       1.2
  Threatening blackmail    10      3.6     9     2.4       0.9
  One or more of the
    above                 120     43.6   272    71.4      51.2 *

Exploitation of the intoxicated
  Taking advantage of a
    drunken target         81     29.5   160    42.1      11.0 *
  Purposefully getting
    a target drunk         30     10.9    95    25.0      20.5 *
  One or more of the
    above                  84     30.5   167    43.8      11.9 *

Physical force, threats, harm
  Blocking target's
    retreat                53     19.3    80    21.1       0.3
  Using physical
    restraint              25      9.1    85    22.4      20.1 *
  Using physical harm      17      6.2    33     8.7       1.5
  Threatening physical
    harm                    3      1.1    24     6.3      11.0 *
  Tying up a target        10      3.6     3     0.8       6.6
  Threatening with a
    weapon                  3      1.1     7     1.8       0.6 *
  One or more of the
    above                  68     24.7   116    30.4       2.6

One or more of all
  the above               159     57.8    297   78.2      31.2 *

                             Men            Women
                          experiencing   experiencing
                           the tactic     the tactic
Tactic                      N = 275        N = 381

                           n        %     n        %      [chi
                                                         square]
Sexual arousal
  Persistent kissing
    and touching          107     39.3    86     22.6     21.4 *
  Perpetrator taking
    off own clothes        61     22.3    67     17.6      2.3
  Perpetrator taking
    off target's
    clothes                75     27.6    58     15.2     14.9 *
  One or more of the
    above                 111     40.4    97     25.5     16.4 *

Emotional manipulation and deception
  Repeatedly asking        79     29.2    53     13.9     22.8 *
  Telling lies             44     16.2    12      3.1     34.4 *
  Using authority of
    older age               2      0.7     1      0.3      0.8 (a)
  Questioning target's
    sexuality               7      2.6     6      1.6      0.8
  Threatening to
    break up                7      2.6     1      0.3      6.9 (a)
  Using authority of
    position                3      1.1     2      0.5      1.6 (a)
  Threatening self-harm     4      1.5     2      0.5      1.5 (a)
  Threatening blackmail     4      1.5     3      0.8      0.7 (a)
  One or more of the
    above                  89     32.4    58     15.2     27.0 *

Exploitation of the intoxicated
  Taking advantage of a
    drunken target         35     12.9    19      5.0     12.9 *
  Purposefully getting
    a target drunk         16      5.9     4      1.1     12.4 *
  One or more of the
    above                  36     13.1    20      5.2     12.6 *

Physical force, threats, harm
  Blocking target's
    retreat                 8      2.9     4      1.1      3.1
  Using physical
    restraint              11      4.0     8      2.1      2.1
  Using physical harm       3      1.1     2      0.5      0.7 (a)
  Threatening physical
    harm                    2      0.7     2      0.5      0.1 (a)
  Tying up a target         3      1.1     4      1.1      0.0 (a)
  Threatening with a
    weapon                  2      0.7     1      0.3      0.8 (a)
  One or more of the
    above                  14      5.1    10      2.6      2.8

One or more of all
  the above               118     43.2   101     26.5     19.9 *

Note. Some percentages are based on less than the total N because of
missing data.

(a) The chi-square test was invalid because of small cell sizes.

* p < .001.

Portions of this paper were presented at an invited symposium at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association in August, 2000, and at a paper session at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality in San Diego, 1998.

REFERENCES

Allgeier, E. R. (2002). Interpreting research results. In M. W. Wiederman & B. E. Whitley, Jr. (Eds.), Handbook for conducting research on human sexuality (pp. 371-392). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Anderson, P. B., & Aymami, R. (1993). Reports of female initiation of sexual contact: Male and female differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22, 335-343.

Anderson, P. B., & Sorensen, W. (1999). Male and female differences in reports of women's heterosexual initiation and aggression. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28, 243-253.

Byers, E. S., & O'Sullivan, L. F. (1998). Similar but different: Men's and women's experiences of sexual coercion. In P. B. Anderson and C. Struckman-Johnson (Eds.), Sexually aggressive women: Current perspectives and controversies (pp. 144-168). New York: Guilford.

Fiebert, M. S., & Tucci, L. M. (1998). Sexual coercion: Men victimized by women. Journal of Men's Studies, 6, 127-133.

Hogben, M., & Waterman, C. K. (2000). Patterns of conflict resolution within relationships and coercive sexual behavior of men and women. Sex Roles, 43, 341-357.

Jackson, S. M., Cram, F., & Seymour, F. (2000). Violence and sexual coercion in high school students' dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 23-36.

Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170.

Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. (1982). Sexual Experiences Survey: A research instrument investigating sexually aggressive men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455-457.

Krahe, B. (2000, August). Women's sexual aggression: Evidence from a German sample. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Lane, K., & Gwartney-Gibbs, P. (1985). Violence in the context of dating and sex. Journal of Family Issues, 6, 45-59.

Larimer, M. E., Lydum, A. R., Anderson, B. K., & Turner, A. P. (1999). Male and female recipients of unwanted sexual contact in a college sample:

Prevalence rates, alcohol use, and depression symptoms. Sex Roles, 40, 295-308.

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

Lottes, I. I., & Weinberg, M. (1996). Sexual coercion among university students: A comparison of the United States and Sweden. The Journal of Sex Research, 34, 67-76.

McConaghy, N., & Zamir, R. (1995). Heterosexual and homosexual coercion, sexual orientation and sexual roles in medical students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24, 489-502.

McCormick, N. B. (1979). Come-ons and put-offs: Unmarried students' strategies for having and avoiding sexual intercourse. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, 194-211.

Muehlenhard, C. L., & Cook, S. (1988). Men's self-reports of unwanted sexual activity. The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 58-72.

O'Sullivan, L. F., & Allgeier, E. R. (1998). Feigning sexual desire: Consenting to unwanted sexual activity in heterosexual dating relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 234-243.

O'Sullivan, L. E, & Byers, E. S. (1993). Eroding stereotypes: College women's attempts to influence reluctant male sexual partners. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 270-282.

O'Sullivan, L. F., Byers, E. S., & Finkelman, L. (1998). A comparison of male and female college students' experiences of sexual coercion. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 177-195.

Senn, C. Y., Verberg, N., Desmarais, S., & Wood, E. (2000). Sampling the reluctant participant: A random-sample response-rate study of men and sexual coercion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 96-105.

Struckman-Johnson, C. J. (1988). Forced sex on dates: It happens to men, too. The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 234-240.

Struckman-Johnson, C., & Anderson, P. B. (1998). "Men do and women don't": Difficulties in researching sexually aggressive women. In P. B. Anderson and C. J. Struckman-Johnson (Eds.), Sexually aggressive women: Current perspectives and controversies (pp. 9-18). New York: Guilford.

Struckman-Johnson, C. J., & Struckman-Johnson, D. L. (1998). The dynamics and impact of sexual coercion of men by women. In P. B. Anderson and C. J. Struckman-Johnson (Eds.), Sexually aggressive women: Current perspectives and controversies (pp. 121-169). New York: Guilford.

Tewsbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2001). Lifestyle factors associated with sexual assault of men: A routine activity theory analysis. Journal of Men's Studies, 9, 153-182.

Waldner-Haugrud, L. K., & Magruder, B. (1995). Male and female sexual victimization in dating relationships: Gender differences in coercion techniques and outcomes. Violence and Victims, 10, 203-215.

Zilbergeld, B. (1978). Male sexuality. New York: Bantam.

Zurbriggen, E. L. (2000). Social motives and cognitive power-sex associations: Predictors of aggressive sexual behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1-23.

Manuscript accepted December 12, 2002

Address correspondence to Cindy Struckman-Johnson, Department of Psychology, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD 57069; e-mail: [e-mail].

Cindy Struckman-Johnson and David Struckman-Johnson
University of South Dakota

Peter B. Anderson
University of New Orleans