Sexual compliance resisting

1. Sexual compliance resisting How to say “no” and mean “no.”

2. the good, the bad, and the ugly • The good: since 1993, rapes and sexual assaults have fallen by more than half in the U.S. • The bad: even for consensual sex, condom use is low (Noar, Zimmerman, & Atwood, 2004). • More bad: In the U.S., recent surveys indicate that someone is sexually assaulted every two and one half minutes (Catalono, 2005) • The ugly: In one survey (Koss, 1988) 51% of college males reported they would commit rape if they were certain they could get away with it.

3. If a woman doesn’t resist it isn’t really rape some women are asking for it. Victim precipitation via flirting, enticing clothing, etc. Many rape allegations are false If she’s drunk she can’t say no Rape is only committed by strangers in dark alleys A husband can’t rape his wife Rape is an impulsive, uncontrollable sex drive Only bad, slutty women get raped It isn’t rape if the two people have had sex before Women fantasize about being raped Women cry rape because they have sex then change their minds common rape myths

4. male rape myths • it is impossible to rape a man • men are incapable of functioning sexually unless they are sexually aroused • men cannot be forced to have sex against their will

5. Compliance gaining strategies are routinely used to induce another person to have sex Pregiving: reciprocity, and indebtedness Liking: attraction, similarity Ingratiation: flattery, self promotion Nonverbal immediacy: smiling, direct gaze, touch, proximity, mirroring Deception: lying about having HIV or an STD Foot in the door, Door in the face Social proof: everyone else is doing it Emotional appeals: guilt, pity, love Promise of reward: gifts, favors Threat of punishment: ending relationship, physical abuse sexual compliance & resistance

6. theoretical underpinnings • Politeness Theory and Facework (Afifi & Lee, 2000, Metts, et al, 1992) • Refusals emphasize face-saving, identity management • Uncertainty reduction theory (Edgar et al, 1992) • Requests for sex are fraught with uncertainty • Short-term relationships involve the most uncertainty • Expectancy violations theory (Bevan, 2003) • Expectations regarding appropriateness of sex may not be shared

7. persuasive exigencies • differing relational goals: • friends versus intimates • the social penetration process: • when is sex expected? 3rd date? 10th date? After marriage? • “college women expect to be dating about twice as long as men do” before having sex (Cohen & Shotland, 1996) • timing and Opportunity: • the “heat of the moment,” the right time and place • desire to avoid conflict • don’t want to seem rude, cause a scene, end the relationship • identity management • don’t want to appear to be too promiscuous • don’t want to appear to be a prude • want to avoid embarrassment, hurt feelings, frustration, resentment • cultural/religious factors

8. The best advice for sex initiators • Use your head, not your _____. • Sexual gratification isn’t worth a criminal charge or civil lawsuit • Registering as a sex offender is no fun • Consent is required, not implied consent • Ask not whether she said “no,” ask whether she said “yes!”

9. agreeing doesn’t end the discussion • Type of sex, what constitutes “Sex”? • Type of protection, whose responsible • Risk factors: sexual histories, known STDs, number of partners • Other concerns (pictures? video? Webcam?)

10. “No” means “No” • A direct “No” is the most effective strategy • “No. I don’t want to.” • “I meant it when I said no.” • “Stop. I don’t want to have sex with you.” • “I’m flattered, but no.” • “I don’t feel the same way about you. No.” • Nonverbal behaviors must compliment the verbal message • Creating physical distance • Avoiding touch • Contradictory cues may suggest the female is being coy

11. the type of “No” matters • Byers & Wilson (1985) • Males and females watched a videotaped interaction of a woman refusing a man’s sexual advances • Plain No: A direct refusal • Relational No: the refusal consisted of “No,” plus an indication she didn’t know the man well enough • Excuse NO: the refusal consisted of “No,” plus an excuse (someone is coming over) • Males and females thought the man should stop for the plain “no” and “relational “no.” • For the excuse “no,” respondents thought the man should try again later than evening.

12. “Just say no” doesn’t always work • Byers & Lewis (1988) asked students to keep diaries of sexual encounters • 58% of the time direct refusals resulted in the male stopping • 12.9% of the time males asked why • 6.5% of the time males stopped but tried to persuade • 6.5% males stopped but expressed anger or displeasure • 16.1% of the time males continued unwanted advances • Males often interpret an initial “No” as the first turn in a negotiation sequence

13. Does “No” Always means “No”? • token resistance: saying “no” when one means “yes” • Metts & Spittsberg (1996) found 40% of people reported using token resistance • Some instances of date rape may result from miscommunication (DesSousa & Hutz, 1996) • Males may perceive women say “no” because they don’t want to appear promiscuous • Males may expect women to offer token resistance to appear chaste

14. Equivocation versus “No” • Indirectness sends mixed signals • “not now” • “I’d rather not” • “It’s too soon • Excuses leaves room for doubt regarding willingness • “I have a headache” • “It’s getting late” • “I don’t have a condom”

15. the trade-off • Direct refusals are the most effective at stopping unwanted sexual advances • Direct refusals are potentially the most damaging to the recipient’s face. • example: “No. I’m not sexually attracted to you.”