This article was downloaded by: [Cukurova Universitesi]

On: 05 November 2014, At: 04:58

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Sex Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20

Sex without Desire: Characteristics of Occasions

of Sexual Compliance in Young Adults' Committed
Relationships
a a
Sarah A. Vannier & Lucia F. O'Sullivan
a
Department of Psychology , University of New Brunswick
Published online: 06 Aug 2009.

To cite this article: Sarah A. Vannier & Lucia F. O'Sullivan (2010) Sex without Desire: Characteristics of Occasions
of Sexual Compliance in Young Adults' Committed Relationships, The Journal of Sex Research, 47:5, 429-439, DOI:
10.1080/00224490903132051

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490903132051

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH, 47(5), 429–439, 2010
Copyright # The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
ISSN: 0022-4499 print=1559-8519 online
DOI: 10.1080/00224490903132051

Sex without Desire: Characteristics of Occasions of Sexual

Compliance in Young Adults’ Committed Relationships
Sarah A. Vannier and Lucia F. O’Sullivan
Department of Psychology, University of New Brunswick

Sexual compliance (i.e., willingly engaging in sexual activity that one does not desire) is a
common behavior among young people. Little is known about the characteristics of occasions
of sexual compliance in the context of a committed relationship. This study used both a diary
method and in-depth interviews to assess occasions of sexual compliance, as well as types of
sexual activity, condom use, pleasure, and feelings of pressure and control. Participants
included 63 young adults (18–24 years old) in committed, heterosexual relationships.
Downloaded by [Cukurova Universitesi] at 04:58 05 November 2014

Seventeen percent of all sexual activity was rated as sexually compliant. Occasions of sexual
compliance were rated as less enjoyable and more unexpected. In-depth interviews revealed
four key themes including endorsement of an implicit contract between partners, partner
awareness of low desire, past experience of pressure, and justification for reporting low desire.
Future research should evaluate the long-term impact of sexual compliance on a relationship.

Within the past two decades, a body of research has
emerged clarifying the distinction between wanting and
consenting to sexual activity (Houts, 2005; Morgan,
Johnson, & Sigler, 2006; O’Sullivan, 2005; O’Sullivan &
Allgeier, 1998; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2007; Shotland
& Hunter, 1995). Wanting sexual activity involves an
inner experience of desire or interest in engaging in sexual
activity. Consenting to sexual activity involves an outward
communication of willingness or agreement to participate
in sexual activity. Situations in which the sexual activity
itself is not wanted or desired, yet the individual
freely consents to it, are considered occasions of ‘‘sexual
compliance’’ (O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998). Central to
the definition of sexual compliance is that consent to sex-
ual activity is not in response to coercion. Additionally,
the partner to whom consent is given may be unaware
of his or her partner’s lack of corresponding desire for
the initiated sexual activity.
We gratefully acknowledge research support from the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development under Grant No.
R01-HD41721 (to Lucia F. O’Sullivan). We thank the students for
their participation in the project, Patricia Antoniello and the adminis-
tration at Brooklyn College, Giovanna Rodriguez and Megan
McCrudden for help with recruitment and data collection, and Chris-
topher Blakely for assisting in coding the qualitative data.
Correspondence should be addressed to Sarah A. Vannier, Depart-
ment of Psychology, University of New Brunswick, 38 Dineen
Dr., Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada E3B-5A3. E-mail: sarah.
vannier@unb.ca
Sexual Compliance and Committed Relationships
Although past research has not distinguished between
sexual compliance in the context of a relationship and
sexual compliance in general (Morgan et al., 2006;
Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2007; Shotland & Hunter,
1995), we hypothesized that engaging in sexual compli-
ance with an established partner is qualitatively different
from engaging in sexual compliance in other sexual
contexts. Research suggests that as a sexual relationship
becomes more established, there are increasingly
fewer occasions on which both partners experience
simultaneous, high, synchronized levels of desire at each
opportunity for sexual interaction over time (Huston &
Vangelisti, 1991; Sternberg, 1986). Thus, sexual
compliance may be viewed as the result of an unspoken
agreement or ‘‘social contract’’ (Shotland & Goodstein,
1992) between romantic partners about maintaining
sexual contact even when, on occasion, sexual activity
is unwanted by one partner. It seems that sexual compli-
ance is both expected and, at least on occasion, accepta-
ble. Shotland and Goodstein argued that this implicit
agreement between partners may be especially important
in a monogamous committed relationship that requires
remaining in a state of ‘‘mutual sexual dependence’’ in
which partners must rely exclusively on each other for
sexual gratification.
Although past research has demonstrated that women
engage in sexual compliance more frequently than
do men (O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998), these gender
differences may decrease, or disappear altogether, when
we focus on sexual compliance within committed
 VANNIER AND O’SULLIVAN
relationships. As a relationship becomes more established,
individuals may feel less bound to behaving in ways that
are consistent with traditional sexual scripts (Simon &
Gagnon, 1984, 1987) or in line with the truncated gender
roles associated with heterosexual interactions (West &
Zimmerman, 1987). For example, women may feel more
comfortable initiating sexual activity, which ultimately
provides their male partners with more opportunities to
engage in both desired and sexually compliant interac-
tions. Past research has shown that the majority of both
men and women report having engaged in sexual compli-
ance on at least one occasion, and also report believing
that their partner likely complied with unwanted sexual
activity in the past (O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998).
The implicit agreement between partners to remain
sexually available to each other (thus necessitating
occasional sexual compliance) may function as a type
Downloaded by [Cukurova Universitesi] at 04:58 05 November 2014
of compromise that serves to benefit a relationship by
maintaining harmony. To maintain a relationship, an
individual must occasionally make compromises to meet
his or her partner’s needs. A willingness to sacrifice one’s
own needs occasionally for those of a partner is
associated with aspects of healthy couple functioning,
including intimacy, problem solving, and shared
activities (Van Lange et al., 1997). Sexual compliance
may represent a means by which compromise occurs
in the sexual domain of a relationship, and we hypo-
thesized that within a committed relationship, sexual
compliance may actually be a normative and adaptive
behavior, at least when engaged in sparingly. This study
assessed characteristics of occasions of sexual compli-
ance within committed relationships.
Prevalence of Sexual Compliance
The experience of sexual compliance appears to be
fairly common among sexually active college students,
with prevalence rates ranging from 6% to 38%, depend-
ing on the sample and choice of measurement (Morgan
et al., 2006; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2007; Shotland &
Hunter, 1995). Almost one half of young adults (ages
21–30) in committed relationships report engaging in
at least one occasion of compliant sexual activity during
a two-week period of data collection, and report an
average lifetime prevalence of 12 occasions of sexual
compliance (O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998). Even within
the context of a committed relationship, sexual compli-
ance is not restricted to the sexual interactions of young
adults: The majority of married women (ages 21–74)
reported engaging in compliant sexual activity with their
husbands on at least one occasion (Basile, 1999).
Motivations and Outcomes
Despite the relatively high prevalence of sexual
compliance, we still know relatively little about the
430
characteristics of these encounters. Generally, motives
for sexual compliance are based on relationship mainte-
nance factors, such as wanting to make a partner happy;
external factors, such as wanting to impress peers or
wanting to gain sexual experience; or situational factors,
such as not having a perceived valid reason to withhold
consent (Impett & Peplau, 2003; Morgan et al., 2006;
Muehlenhard & Cook, 1988; O’Sullivan & Allgeier,
1998). As might be expected, relationship maintenance
motivations for sexually compliant behavior are more
common in established relationships than are external
or situational factors (O’Sullivan & Allegier, 1998). This
is consistent with our hypothesis that sexual compliance
in a committed relationship is distinct from sexual
compliance in other contexts.
In contrast with the negative psychological and
behavioral outcomes typically associated with non-
consensual experiences (Neville & Heppner, 1999),
engaging in compliant sexual activity with a long-term
partner may result in positive outcomes such as promot-
ing intimacy in the relationship (Impett, Peplau, &
Gable, 2005; O’Sullivan & Allgeier, 1998). In addition,
both engaging in and perceiving your partner as
engaging in compliant sexual activity for relationship
maintenance reasons (e.g., wanting to please a partner)
are related to satisfaction, closeness, and fun in the
relationship (Impett et al., 2005).
The Current Study
The goal of this study was to improve our under-
standing of sexual interactions between individuals in
a committed relationship and to advance the literature
on sexual compliance in a number of ways. First, this
study examines in greater detail the characteristics of
occasions of sexual compliance in established relation-
ships. Few studies to date have provided information
on characteristics beyond motivations and outcomes.
In particular, we still know very little about how sexual
compliance within a relationship influences important
characteristics such as type of sexual activity, condom
use, and sexual pleasure. It is also unclear whether enga-
ging in sexual compliance influences an individual’s
decision to assert his or her needs or interests in other
ways. For example, individuals who report engaging in
compliant sexual activity may be less likely to express
a desire to use a condom when it has not already been
initiated. As rates of condom use are low among young
adults (Moyo, Levandowski, MacPhail, Rees, &
Pettifor, 2008; O’Sullivan, Udell, & Patel, 2006), espe-
cially those in a committed relationship (Anderson,
2003; Woolf & Maisto, 2008), understanding how sexual
compliance promotes or hinders condom use is an
important aim of this study. Additionally, it is unknown
which sexual activities are most closely associated
with sexual compliance. Individuals may be sexually
 CHARACTERISTICS OF SEXUAL COMPLIANCE
compliant only with regard to highly intimate sexual
activities, such as sexual intercourse. Alternatively, indi-
viduals experiencing low desire may opt to participate in
a less ‘‘involved’’ or intimate activity such as oral sex
instead of intercourse. Thus, we examined the relation-
ship between sexual compliance and the types of sexual
activity participants reported. We also measured per-
ceived feelings of control over the pace of the encounter
and expectedness of the sexual encounter to determine if
either were related to sexual activity, pleasure, and
reports of condom use. It is possible that when a sexual
encounter is unexpected, or the pace of the sexual
encounter is perceived as under a partner’s control, an
individual is less likely or less prepared to act in his or
her own interest, including taking steps to protect his
or her sexual health.
This study also advances past research by assessing
Downloaded by [Cukurova Universitesi] at 04:58 05 November 2014
perceptions of pressure to engage in sexual behavior.
By making this distinction, we aim to ensure that the
interactions we defined as sexually compliant are truly
compliant and not the result of some type of explicit
pressure exerted by a partner. Other studies may have
inadvertently included coerced interactions in their
investigations of sexual compliance. For example, Shot-
land and Hunter (1995) asked participants if they had
ever said ‘‘yes’’ to a partner when they really did not
want to have intercourse. This may have unintentionally
captured occasions of sexual coercion, as well as occa-
sions of sexual compliance. To meet our definition of
sexual compliance, an individual must report both a
low desire to engage in a sexual activity and low felt
pressure from his or her partner to engage in the sexual
activity at that time.
Finally, this study extends past research by using
both a prospective diary method, as well as in-depth
interviews, to examine in greater detail the characteris-
tics of occasions of compliant sexual activity. Past
research has relied heavily on retrospective self-reports
requiring individuals to recall past, often distal, events
(Morgan et al., 2006; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2007).
The use of prospective methods, such as daily journals
or online records, may provide more accurate and
detailed information (Gillmore et al., 2001; Hoppe
et al., 2008; McAuliffe, DiFranceisco, & Reed, 2007;
O’Sullivan, 2005). The use of qualitative methods, such
as in-depth interviews, allowed us to assess participants’
experiences of sexual compliance in greater depth.
Moreover, this study extends what is known about
sexual compliance to an ethnically diverse sample.
Method
Participants
The sample comprised 31 men and 32 women
enrolled at a city college in New York City, who were
recruited by distributing fliers in classrooms across
campus (i.e., computer science, anthropology, and social
work). Participants were 18 to 24 years of age (M ¼ 20.4)
and were primarily from the U.S. mainland (61%),
although individuals from the Caribbean (19%), Eurasia
(16%), and South America (3%) were also represented.
Participant ethnicities’ were White (41.3%), Black or
African American (34.9%), Hispanic or Latino (22.2%),
and Asian (1.6%). The majority (90.5%) reported being
in school full time. All participants were in a committed,
heterosexual relationship. The average length of this
relationship was 25.7 months (SD ¼ 23.2; range ¼
1–108). Most participants were never married and not
cohabiting at the time of the study (82.5%). Over
one half of the sample (58.7%) indicated that they had
not had another serious relationship prior to their
current one.
Measures
Background questionnaire. Participants provided
information about their age, ethnicity, country of
origin, student status (full time or part time), current
relationship status, and length of relationship. Partici-
pants were also asked to provide information about
their sexual history. This information included the
number of sexual partners that they had had, as well
as their lifetime frequency of engaging in protected
and unprotected fellatio, vaginal intercourse, and anal
intercourse.
Structured daily diaries. Participants monitored
their sexual interactions over a three-week period using
a highly structured, one-page form designed for this pur-
pose. Respondents used a new page each day to indicate
whether they had engaged in sexual activity (yes, no),
defined for participants as genital touching, oral sex,
vaginal intercourse, or anal intercourse. For days on
which sexual activity occurred, respondents indicate
(a) who initiated the sexual activity (self, partner, or
both), (b) how much they wanted to engage in sexual
activity at that time, on a scale ranging from 1 (not at
all) to 7 (very much), (c) how much they perceived their
partner as wanting to engage in sexual activity at that
time, on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very
much), (d) how enjoyable the sexual encounter was
for them, on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very
enjoyable), (e) the type of sexual activity in which
they had engaged (from a checklist), (f) who initiated
condom use, if a condom was used at that time (self,
partner, or both), (g) whether the sexual encounter
was expected or unexpected, (h) whether they felt any
type of pressure (i.e., control, power, verbal, physical,
or threat) to engage in sexual activity with their partner
at that time, and (i) who controlled the pace of the
encounter (self, partner, or both).
431
 VANNIER AND O’SULLIVAN
In-depth interview. After the three-week period of
daily tracking, participants completed an individual
in-depth interview designed to explore a number of
aspects relating to young adults’ sexual interactions
(e.g., expressions of intimacy, decision making, commu-
nication, and use of power and influence). Participants’
descriptions of their experiences during the three-week
period of data collection were the focus of the inter-
views. Questions relevant to experiences of sexual com-
pliance were the focus of the analyses here. Participants
were asked to describe in detail any experiences of sexual
compliance that they had reported in the structured
daily diaries. Participants were also asked about their
motivations for engaging in sexual compliance, if they
believed their partner had been aware of their lack of
desire for the sexual activity, and if they believed their
partner had ever engaged in sexual compliance.
Downloaded by [Cukurova Universitesi] at 04:58 05 November 2014
Procedure
Students who were interested in participating in the
study were asked to contact study staff at the site office
to be screened for eligibility. Eligible students were those
18 to 24 years of age and currently in a heterosexually
active relationship. Participants completed the back-
ground questionnaire before being trained to complete
the structured one-page daily diary forms. The sex-
related content of the daily diaries was coded to help
ensure the privacy of the participants should anyone
outside the study inadvertently read their reports.
Participants were trained to use the codes in the initial
training session and tested on their ability to do so using
short, hypothetical scenarios. Study personnel provided
participants with stamped addressed envelopes in which
to return their forms on a daily basis to the study offices.
Forms were identified only by a code number that was
assigned at the beginning of the study. Participants
returned at the end of the three weeks and participated
in an in-depth interview about their sexual interactions
during this period. Embedded in this interview were
questions about any occasions of sexual compliance
in which the participant had reported engaging.
Participants received a total of $65 in compensation
for their time. This consisted of $10 for completing
the initial training and background questionnaires, $30
for completing the daily forms, and $25 for completing
the semi-structured interview. The study protocol was
reviewed and approved by the institutional review board
for protection of human subjects in research.
Data Analysis
Only those participants who returned at least 16 of
the 21 forms were retained for analyses. A total of 12
men and 6 women were dropped from an original
sample of 43 men and 38 women. Those who reported
14 or fewer days were not different from the sample
432
retained in the analyses in terms of key background
and sexual variables (age, number of sexual partners,
and length of primary relationship).
Diary data. Occasions of sexual activity were
characterized as occasions of sexual compliance if parti-
cipants rated their desire to engage in sexual activity as
either negative or neutral on a Likert scale ranging from
1 (not at all) to 7 (very much) (thus, a four or less). We
chose to include participants who reported that their
desire was neutral because we felt this was consistent
with the definition of sexual compliance as consenting
to engage in sexual activity, despite having no desire
for the sexual behavior. Occasions for which a partici-
pant reported feeling overt pressure from a partner to
engage in the initiated activity were removed from
further analyses to ensure that occasions classified as
sexually compliant met our operational definition of sex-
ual compliance and were truly consensual encounters.
Eighteen occasions of sexual activity were removed from
the analyses. Of these 18 occasions, one half were also
categorized as occasions of sexual compliance. To
address statistical problems associated with multiple
data points from individual participants, only the first
occasion of sexual compliance reported by each partici-
pant were included in analyses comparing occasions of
sexual compliance (n ¼ 29) and desired sexual activity
(n ¼ 34). For participants who did not report any occa-
sions of sexual compliance, their first occasion of desired
sexual activity was included in the analyses.1
Gender differences in lifetime frequency of sexual
activity, and frequency of sexual activity during the per-
iod of data collection, were analyzed using analyses of
variance (ANOVAs). Occasions of sexual compliance
were compared to occasions of desired sexual activity.
Categorical variables, such as initiator, type of sexual
activity, initiator of condom use, expectedness, and con-
trol over pace, were analyzed using either chi-square
analyses or Fisher’s exact tests, as determined by the cell
values. Continuous variables, such as sexual pleasure
and perceptions of partner’s desire, were analyzed using
ANOVAs.
In-depth interview. All interviews were audiotaped
and then transcribed. Transcripts were examined by
1
Analyses were conducted to compare the background characteris-
tics of individuals who reported an occasion of sexual compliance to
those of individuals who did not report an occasion of sexual compli-
ance. Participants who reported engaging in sexual compliance during
the three-week period of data collection reported a higher number of
past sexual partners, F(1, 60) ¼ 26.15, p < .01 (Ms ¼ 3.99 vs. 7.47).
Within-subjects analyses were also conducted comparing the first
reported occasion of sexual compliance with the first reported occasion
of desired sexual activity for each participant. These analyses were
identical to those conducted between subjects, with one exception:
Sexually compliant encounters were more likely to involve vaginal
intercourse, v2(1) ¼ 3.98, p < .05.
 CHARACTERISTICS OF SEXUAL COMPLIANCE

two independent raters who identified major coding
categories as well as sub-themes existing within each
category. A formal coding template was developed
based on these themes, and used to formally code the
transcripts. Themes that were not consistent with the
original coding template were discussed and agreed on
by the two raters (Sandelowski, 1986).
Interview excerpts regarding sexual compliance were
obtained for only 25 of the 29 participants who reported
at least one occasion of sexual compliance. To reduce
the likelihood that participant interviews included
descriptions of occasions of undesired sexual activity
that did not meet our operational definition of sexual
compliance, the interviews of participants whose daily
forms indicated any occasion of sexual activity during
which their partner exerted pressure in any form were
not included in the qualitative analyses. Twelve inter-
Downloaded by [Cukurova Universitesi] at 04:58 05 November 2014
frequency of unprotected vaginal intercourse than did
men, F(1, 60) ¼ 5.13, p < .05, although there was no dif-
ference in their reports of lifetime frequency of protected
vaginal intercourse, F(1, 60) ¼ 3.15, p > .05. Moreover,
there were no gender differences in lifetime frequency
of engaging in protected and unprotected oral sex or
anal intercourse.
Sexual Interactions
Daily diary records were completed for 1,284 of 1,323
person–days (97% response rate). Participants com-
pleted an average of 20.38 daily forms (SD ¼ 1.28;
range ¼ 15–21; Mdn ¼ 21.0 days) over the three-week
period. There were no gender differences in completion
rate (Ms ¼ 20.39 and 20.38, men and women, respec-
tively), F(1, 61) ¼ 0.001, p > .05.

views were included in the final analysis.
The results were organized so that they summarize
data reported from the structured daily diaries to obtain
a general understanding of the range of participants’
experiences, then according to the four primary themes
that emerged from our qualitative analyses. These
themes were interpreted in terms of support for the con-
cept of implicit social contracts in sexual interactions at
the individual and relationship levels. Illustrative quotes
from the interviews are included to elucidate further the
range of perspectives offered for each dimension.
Results
Sexual History
A summary of participants’ sexual histories can be
found in Table 1. Participants reported an average of
5.6 sexual partners, with male and female participants
reporting similar numbers of sexual partners, F(1,
60) ¼ 2.54, p > .05. Women reported a higher lifetime
Frequencies for each type of sexual activity are
reported in Table 2. Over the three-week period of data
collection, participants reported a total of 378 occasions
of sexual activity. On average, each participant reported
six occasions of sexual activity (SD ¼ 2.85; range ¼
1–14). There were no gender differences in the number
of days involving sexual activity (Ms ¼ 5.74 and 6.25,
men and women, respectively), F(1, 61) ¼ 0.494, p > .05.
Men reported more occasions of protected vaginal inter-
course than did women (Ms ¼ 2.48 and 1.25, respec-
tively), F(1, 61) ¼ 4.21, p < .05. Women reported more
occasions of cunnilingus than did men (Ms ¼ 3.46 and
2.10, respectively), F(1, 61) ¼ 5.47, p < .05; as well as
more occasions of unprotected vaginal intercourse than
did men (Ms ¼ 4.06 and 2.13, respectively), F(1, 61) ¼
6.51, p < .05. There were no other gender differences in
reports of sexual activity.
Sexually Compliant Interactions: Diary Data
On average, participants reported a high level of
desire to engage in sexual activity (M ¼ 5.87, SD ¼ 0.94;

Table 1. Lifetime Sexual Histories of Male and Female Participants

Total Men Women

Variable N M (SD) Range N M (SD) N M (SD)

No. of sexual partners 63 5.60 (5.0) 1–20 31 6.60 (5.5) 32 4.61 (4.3)
Fellatio
Unprotected 42 11.20 (19.1) 0–97 19 8.60 (13.5) 25 13.60 (23.0)
Protected 50 12.40 (18.6) 0–97 25 9.90 (13.1) 23 14.80 (22.7)
Vaginal intercourse
Unprotected 38 11.70 (20.3) 0–110 20 5.50 (7.5)
22 17.30 (26.0)

Protected 63 19.30 (19.7) 1–110 31 14.90 (12.2) 32 23.60 (24.4)
Anal intercourse
Unprotected 5 0.38 (1.6) 0–10 1 0.17 (0.9) 4 0.56 (1.97)
Protected 6 0.36 (1.5) 0–10 2 0.37 (1.8) 4 0.34 (1.0)

Note. n ¼ 31 men and n ¼ 32 women.

p < .05.

433
 VANNIER AND O’SULLIVAN

Table 2. Frequency of Sexual Activity (SA) During the Three-Week Period of Diary Data Collection

Total Men Women

Variable N M (SD) Range N M (SD) N M (SD)

No. of days completed 63 20.38 (1.3) 15–21 31 20.39 (1.4) 32 20.38 (1.2)
No. of days with SA 63 6.00 (2.9) 1–14 31 5.74 (3.0) 32 6.25 (2.8)
Frequency of SA
Genital touch 60 5.13 (3.0) 0–12 30 4.65 (2.8) 30 5.59 (3.2)
Cunnilingus 53 2.79 (2.4) 0–11 23 2.10 (1.8)
30 3.47 (2.7)

Fellatio 53 3.29 (2.7) 0–10 26 2.77 (2.6) 27 3.78 (2.7)
Vaginal intercourse
Unprotected 43 3.11 (3.1) 0–12 18 2.13 (2.8)
25 4.06 (3.2)

Protected 35 1.86 (2.5) 0–13 22 2.48 (2.8)
13 1.25 (1.9)

Anal intercourse
Unprotected 7 0.19 (0.8) 0–6 3 0.10 (0.3) 4 0.28 (1.1)
Protected 2 0.08 (0.5) 0–4 1 0.13 (0.7) 1 0.03 (0.2)

p < .05.
Downloaded by [Cukurova Universitesi] at 04:58 05 November 2014

range ¼ 1.7–7). There were no gender differences
in reports of level of desire for sexual activity (Ms ¼
5.79 and 5.94, men and women, respectively), F(1,
61) ¼ 0.401, p > .05.
Forty-six percent (29 out of 63) of participants
reported at least one occasion of sexual compliance.
Of all occasions of sexual activity, 17.2% were occasions
of sexual compliance. Characteristics of occasions of
sexual compliance and occasions of desired sexual
activity are reported in Table 3. Although there was
no gender difference in the frequency of engaging in
sexual compliance, occasions of compliant sexual
activity were more likely to be initiated by the male
partner, v2(1) ¼ 3.91, p < .05, than were occasions of
desired sexual activity. This means that some men
reported initiating sexual activity even when they them-
selves did not desire the sexual activity. Occasions of
sexual compliance were rated as less enjoyable than were
occasions of desired sexual activity (Ms ¼ 4.97 and 6.29,
respectively), F(1, 61) ¼ 12.57, p < .01; and were more
likely to be unexpected, v2(1) ¼ 6.19, p < .05. Not sur-
prisingly, in comparison to occasions of desired sexual
activity, occasions of sexual compliance were more
likely to be initiated by the sexual partner than by the
participant, v2(1) ¼ 8.10, p < .01. Participants also
reported than their partner had control over the pace
of the sexual interaction more frequently during
occasions of sexual compliance, v2(1) ¼ 5.44, p < .05.
There were no differences between occasions of sexual
compliance and occasions of desired sexual activity in
the proportions involving condom use, types of sexual
activity involved (i.e., genital touching, oral sex, and
vaginal intercourse), or perceptions of a partner’s level
of desire (all ps > .05).
Qualitative Analyses
Four themes emerged in the analysis of the in-depth
interviews that help to characterize occasions of sexual
compliance. These themes were (a) participants endorse
implicit contracts, (b) participants provide a range of
reasons to explain their low desire, (c) participants
believe that their partners are aware of their low desire,
and (d) participants describe past situations in which
their partner exerted subtle pressure.
Endorsing Implicit Contracts
The majority of participants (75%) described
motivations for engaging in sexual compliance that
appeared consistent with our hypothesis that sexual
compliance in a committed relationship is the result of
an unspoken agreement about maintaining sexual con-
tact even when, on occasion, sexual activity is unwanted
by one partner. Several participants also acknowledged
that it is unreasonable to assume that both partners in
a romantic relationship consistently experience the same
level of desire for sexual activity. For example, one man
said, ‘‘If she wants to, you gotta make her happy ‘cause
there’s gonna’ be days she’s, she won’t wanna have
intercourse, she’ll do it for you so you know, it’s like a
sacrifice. So it’s like, there’s some days like that.’’ A
woman explained this reciprocal agreement in the
following way:
It’s because there are times that I like really, really, really
wanna do it but he might not. But he’ll still go ahead
with it? It’s kinda like—to me, you know, it’s like—
‘‘Hey you know, if he does it to me, why can’t I do it
to him?’’ I care a lot about him and I do love him, so
why can’t I please him the way he pleases me?
Several participants (33%) reported engaging in
sexual compliance from a concern for their partners’
feelings or else feeling guilty themselves for not desiring
the sexual activity. One male participant explained that
he sometimes engaged in sexual compliance to protect
his partner’s feelings: ‘‘I just run along with it, you

434
 CHARACTERISTICS OF SEXUAL COMPLIANCE

Table 3. Characteristics of the First Occasion of Compliant and Desired Sexual Activity

Compliant Desired Total

Variable n ¼ 29 % n ¼ 34 % n ¼ 63 %

Gender of participant
Male 12 41 19 56 31 49
Female 17 59 15 44 32 51
Initiator
Me 8
28 18
53 26 41
Partner 18

62 9

26 27 43
Both 3 10 7 21 10 16
Gender of initiator
Male 20
69 15
44 35 56
Female 6 21 12 35 18 29
Sexual activity
Genital touching 23 79 31 91 54 86
Cunnilingus 11 38 13 38 24 38
Fellatio 15 52 17 50 32 51
Vaginal intercourse
Downloaded by [Cukurova Universitesi] at 04:58 05 November 2014

Unprotected 9 31 17 50 26 41
Protected 7 24 16 47 23 37
Protected onlya 7 24 9 26 16 25
Anal intercourseb
Unprotected 0 0 1 3 1 2
Expectedness
Expected 8 28 20 59 28 44
Unexpected 21 72 14 41 35 56
Controlled pace
Me 9 31 16 47 25 40
Partner 15
52 11
32 26 41
Both 5 17 7 21 12 19
Initiated condom usec
Me 3 43 7 44 10 43
Partner 0 0 5 31 5 22
Both 4 57 4 25 8 35

Note. All variables with a cell size less than five were analyzed using a Fisher’s exact test. All other variables were analyzed using chi-squares.
a
Some participants reported engaging in both protected and unprotected intercourse during the same occasion of sexual activity.
b
There were no reported occasions of protected anal intercourse.
c
Percentages were calculated based on the number of participants who reported condom use.


p < .05.

p < .01.

know—to make her happy—so . . . so she wouldn’t be
like . . . all like upset or something.’’ One female partici-
pant described feeling guilty when she did not desire
sexual activity:
There are some times when I’m just not in the mood.
Really, I’m not in the mood. And I know how much
he would want it, ’cause it’s been so long for him—or
for both of us, but—sometimes guys take it . . . like it’s
the end of the world. I would honestly feel bad and I
would [engage in sexual activity] because of it.
When asked to describe situations in which they
engaged in sexual activity for reasons other than their
own desire, a few participants (18%) described situations
in which they performed oral sex on their partner. One
participant stated, ‘‘I really don’t feel like giving him a
blow job every time. But I do it because . . . it makes
him happy. And sometimes I feel like I should do
that—like you know, he does so much for me, you
know?’’ A second participant said, ‘‘Oral sex—I hate
that—I don’t know, I feel like I need to throw up.
But . . . I’ll do it for him because . . . he . . . he has no
problem doing it for me.’’
Reasons for Reporting Low Desire
Although not explicitly asked to explain why they
reported a low desire for sexual activity, when partici-
pants were asked to discuss situations of sexual compli-
ance, all but one participant gave reasons for their lack
of desire for sexual activity. Reasons for lack of desire
were primarily feeling tired (58%), stressed (42%), or
angry (17%). The majority of participants were full-time
students, and many described feeling stressed about
schoolwork or feeling tired as a result of working while
attending school. One female participant explained that,
‘‘These past coupla’ weeks, it’s been rehearsal . . . late

435
 VANNIER AND O’SULLIVAN
night rehearsals. And then there’s papers due, and I had
midterms. And so it was stressful.’’ Another female
participant described noting in her diary forms feeling
tired after a long day: ‘‘I didn’t really feel like it. I don’t
know . . . I was tired. I worked that day, you know? I
think I had a test or an exam . . . something like that.
And I don’t know, I was just not in the mood.’’
Over one half of the participants (58%) described
situations in which they initially did not desire sexual
activity but, as the interaction continued, became
sexually aroused by their partner. One female partici-
pant explained: ‘‘I usually ended up, I usually like didn’t
want to when we started, but I ended up of course,
wanting to.’’
Partner Awareness
Downloaded by [Cukurova Universitesi] at 04:58 05 November 2014
Consistent with our description of sexual compliance
as the result of an implicit understanding between
partners in a committed relationship, the majority of
participants (67%) reported that they believed their
partner was aware that they did not desire the initiated
sexual activity. One half of these participants reported
that they had directly verbalized their feelings to their
partner. One female participant described telling her
partner she did not wish to engage in sexual activity:
‘‘I was just like, ‘I don’t really feel like it.’ I was like,
‘Not that I don’t love you, or whatever, I’m just
really tired.’ ’’ One male participant was very direct in
expressing his lack of desire to his partner: ‘‘I told her.
I would be like, ‘I’m tired. I’m really tired, I just wanna’
go to sleep.’ ’’
Three participants (25%) reported that their partner
was not aware of their lack of desire. Two participants
revealed that they actively hid their lack of desire from
their partner to prevent hurting their partners’ feelings.
One female participant explained: ‘‘If I ever give
him . . . the indication that the sex wasn’t . . . that enjoy-
able, it devastates him. It devastates him. It’s like, ‘Oh
no, I’m sorry! Let’s do it again. I have to do it better’!’’
A male participant described protecting his partner’s
feelings: ‘‘I don’t let [her] know. Like I was . . . cause like
she’s so self-conscious that if she knows that I’m not
into it like . . . she just you know, she’ll feel bad about
herself, like she’s forcing on me so . . . I always make it
seem like I’m into it as much as she is.’’
A History of Pressure
We did not include in our qualitative analysis the
interviews of participants who reported any occasion
of sexual activity in which they felt pressured by their
partner during the three-week period of data collection
to ensure we had captured just occasions of sexual
compliance. Despite this, in almost one half of the inter-
views that were included (42%), participants described
situations in which their partners had exerted pressure
436
on past occasions of sexual activity. This pressure often
took the form of whining, begging, or trying to make
their partner feel guilty. One female participant
described a situation in which her partner made her feel
guilty for not desiring sexual activity: ‘‘He’s like, ‘I don’t
get you’. . . . And like if I still say, ‘No,’ he’ll . . . he’ll be
sad, like, ‘I don’t get you horny anymore’, you know?
And I feel so bad, he’s so cute.’’ Another female partici-
pant described how her partner tried to convince her to
engage in sexual activity: ‘‘Sometimes he’s like, ‘C’mon’!
You know, he begs me, you know? Not really like pres-
suring or hitting or yelling at me. It’s not like that. It’s
like a begging type of thing—like, ‘Please, I really want
it’, you know? That type of thing.’’
Discussion
Although desire to engage in sexual activity was
typically high, occasions of sexual compliance were
common in the context of committed relationships in
this sample of ethnically diverse young adults. Similar
to the rates of sexual compliance reported by O’Sullivan
and Allgeier (1998), almost one half of the sample (46%)
reported at least one occasion of sexual compliance, and
17% of all sexual activity was characterized as sexually
compliant. Compared to past research, sexual compli-
ance appears to be more common within the context
of committed relationships than in sexual interactions
more generally (Morgan et al., 2006; Peterson &
Muehlenhard, 2007; Shotland & Hunter, 1995).
Participants’ interviews provided support for the
concept of an implicit social contract (Shotland &
Goodstein, 1992). The majority of participants des-
cribed situations in which they believed that they should
comply with their partner’s desire to engage in sexual
activity, even though they themselves did not desire
the sexual activity. This felt obligation was associated
with an awareness that there may be future occasions
in which the roles would be reversed. Moreover, most
participants indicated that they had explicitly communi-
cated their lack of desire or that their partners were
aware of their lack of desire. Although the partners
did not use pressure or force to gain compliance, this
finding suggests that, on occasion, the partner who is
accommodated sexually is expected to take the lead in
increasing the compliant partner’s level of desire.
It is important to note that sexual compliance
resembles in many respects forms of compromise that
characterize other heterosexual interactions, such as
agreeing to a partner’s choice in restaurant or movie
or negotiating the division of household labor. In short,
just as romantic partners’ interests and preferences
clearly do not overlap in all other arenas of a couple’s
life, nor do they always in the sexual realm.
However, the fact that these interactions occur in a
sexual context may mean that they are more prone to
 CHARACTERISTICS OF SEXUAL COMPLIANCE
a greater division along gender-based lines. Gender roles
are most apparent in heterosexual relationships
(Gagnon & Parker, 1995). Researchers have long
emphasized the importance of power dynamics between
women and men in their intimate relationships, includ-
ing men’s dominance and women’s subordination
through socially constructed gender roles (Amaro,
1995; Wingood & DiClemente, 1998a, 1998b). It is
interesting to note that, although there was no gender
difference in the frequency of engaging in sexual compli-
ance, occasions of sexual compliance were more likely
to be initiated by male partners—that is, some men
initiated sexual activity that they themselves did not
desire. These men may have assumed the traditional role
of the initiator of sexual activity (Simon & Gagnon,
1984, 1987)—to demonstrate greater sexual interest, to
pursue women as sexual objects of desire, or to prove
Downloaded by [Cukurova Universitesi] at 04:58 05 November 2014
their virility by making sexual demands. Heterosexual
interactions afford couples opportunities to create and
reinforce gender differences often touted as representing
our ‘‘essential’’ natures (West & Zimmerman, 1987).
Future research could provide valuable insight into
perceptions of gender roles and sexual scripts as they
relate to sexual compliance.
As indicated earlier, men and women did not differ in
their frequency of reports of sexual compliance. This is
inconsistent with past research, which has found that
women engage in sexual compliance more frequently
than do men (Impett & Peplau, 2003; Muehlenhard &
Cook, 1988). We may have found similar rates because
this sample had the longest relationship duration yet
studied, to our knowledge. Thus, male and female
partners may institute a standard of sexual compliance
the longer the time that they have shared together if they
become desynchronized in terms of levels of sexual
desire, develop more competing interests regarding
how to spend their time together, or become generally
less bound by traditional sexual scripts (Simon &
Gagnon, 1984, 1987). Alternately, the young adults in
our study may present patterns of sexual behavior that
are different from those of adolescents and older adults,
as well as young adults from different generations
(Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 1997; Forrest &
Singh, 1990; Sonenstein, Pleck, & Ku, 1989). For exam-
ple, 34% of participants in this study reported using a
condom during their last experience of intercourse, as
compared to 19% of college students over the age of
25 (CDC, 1997).
A significant portion of the sample described in their
interviews at least one previous occasion in which their
partner used guilt or pressure to persuade them to
engage in sexual activity. Past attempts to refuse sexual
activity may have been met with a negative response
from their partners. Thus, a desire to maintain harmony
in the relationship, and to avoid a partner’s negative
reaction, may motivate some to engage in undesired
sexual activity, even when their partner is not currently
overtly using pressure. Future work should examine the
relationship between past experiences of pressure to
engage in sexual activity and occasions of sexual compli-
ance. It is possible that sexual compliance in relation-
ships with a history of pressured sexual activity may
be qualitatively different from sexual compliance in
relationships that do not have this history.
Occasions of sexual compliance differed from desired
sexual interactions in several important ways. They were
rated as less enjoyable, which may have implications for
relationship quality. As higher levels of sexual satisfac-
tion are associated with higher levels of relationship
satisfaction (Birnbaum, 2007), repeatedly engaging in
sexual activity that is not desired, and possibly not plea-
surable, may have a detrimental effect on a relationship
or an individual’s overall level of sexual desire or arou-
sal. Frequency of engaging in sexual compliance may be
an important factor to consider in future work on sexual
dysfunction.
Occasions of sexual compliance were also more likely
to be unexpected than were occasions of desired sexual
activity. The unexpectedness of an encounter, as well
as a lack of preparedness to engage in sexual activity,
helps to explain why an individual may experience low
desire to engage in sexual activity. Anticipation has been
identified as an important component of sexual desire
(McCarthy, 1995), and it is possible that when sexual
activity is not anticipated, it may take longer for an indi-
vidual to become aroused and interested in the activity.
This finding is consistent with results indicating that the
majority of participants reported enjoying the sexual
activity despite not wanting to engage in it at first.
Alternatively, individuals with lower levels of sexual
desire tend to think about sex less often than do indivi-
duals with higher levels of sexual desire (Baumeister,
Catanese, & Vohs, 2001). If so, individuals who desire
sexual activity less frequently might not be thinking
about sex as frequently; thus, occasions of sexual activ-
ity are more likely to be unexpected.
Occasions of sexual compliance also shared some
similar characteristics to desired sexual interactions.
There were no differences between occasions of sexual
compliance and occasions of desired sexual activity in
the type of sexual behavior participants reported. There
was also no difference in reports of condom use between
occasions of sexual compliance and occasions of desired
sexual activity. As a relationship becomes more estab-
lished, rates of condom use typically drop (Moyo et al.,
2008). Individuals in committed relationships, such as
those included in our study, may have established
patterns of sexual behavior and condom use (de Visser
& Smith, 2001) that are not influenced by fluctuating
levels of desire. Future work should examine character-
istics of occasions of sexual compliance in other contexts,
such as ‘‘hooking-up’’ (i.e., one-time sexual encounters
with a stranger or acquaintance; Paul, McManus, &
Hayes, 2000) or dating situations.
437
 VANNIER AND O’SULLIVAN
Limitations
A limitation of this study is that we collected data
from only one of the two partners in the relationship.
Collecting data from both partners would have provided
insight into how the men’s and women’s perspectives
vary for any given interaction. These data may also have
constituted a reliability check, although partner reports
of the occurrence and characteristics of sexual interac-
tions are frequently discrepant (Harvey, Bird, Hender-
son, Beckman, & Huszti, 2004). For example, women
tend to report initiating sexual activity more frequently
than their male partners report women initiating sexual
activity (Anderson & Aymami, 1993). A second limita-
tion is that we did not have interview data for all parti-
cipants. This reduced the sample size for the qualitative
analysis. However, our analyses revealed no differences
between the participants who completed the interview
Downloaded by [Cukurova Universitesi] at 04:58 05 November 2014
and those who did not on any of the key variables
(i.e., frequency of sexual compliance). A third limitation
of this study is that most of our participants were neither
married nor cohabitating. This limits the extent to which
we can generalize our findings to other populations.
Future research should examine sexual compliance in
other committed relationships, including those of
married and cohabiting individuals, as well as same-
sex relationships. Comparisons at different stages of
relationship development via prospective data collection
could also help to answer important questions about
whether sexual compliance contributes to lowered
sexual desire or arousal over time.
Conclusion
Sexual compliance is common between heterosexual
partners in committed relationships. Although many
participants reported engaging in sexual compliance as
a form of compromise, it may ultimately have negative
implications such as reduced sexual pleasure. This
research also underscores the importance of examining
sexual scripts and gender roles in the context of
established relationships. Future research should
evaluate the long-term impact of sexual compliance on
a relationship.
References
Amaro, H. (1995). Love, sex, and power: Considering women’s
realities in HIV prevention. American Psychologist, 50, 437–447.
Anderson, J. E. (2003). Condom use and HIV risk among U.S. adults.
American Journal of Public Health, 93, 912–914.
Anderson, P. B., & Aymami, R. (1993). Reports of female initiation of
sexual contact: Male and female differences. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 22, 335–343.
Basile, K. C. (1999). Rape by acquiescence: The ways in which women
‘‘give in’’ to unwanted sex with their husbands. Violence Against
Women, 5, 1036–1058.
438
Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a
gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views,
conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242–273.
Birnbaum, G. E. (2007). Attachment orientations, sexual functioning,
and relationship satisfaction in a community sample of women.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 21–35.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1997). National college
health risk behavior survey—United States, 1995. Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly, 46(No. SS-6), 1–30. Atlanta: Epidemiology
Program Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
de Visser, R., & Smith, A. (2001). Relationship between sexual
partners influences rates and correlates of condom use. AIDS
Education and Prevention, 13, 413–427.
Forrest, J. D., & Singh, S. (1990). The sexual and reproductive
behavior of American women, 1982–1988. Family Planning
Perspectives, 22, 206–214.
Gagnon, J. H., & Parker, R. G. (1995). Conceiving sexuality. In J. H.
Gagnon & R. G. Parker (Eds.), Conceiving sexuality: Approaches
to sex research in a postmodern world (pp. 3–16). New York:
Routledge.
Gillmore, M. R., Gaylord, J., Hartway, J., Hoppe, M. J., Morrison,
D. M., Leigh, B. C., et al. (2001). Daily diary collection of sexual
and other health-related behaviors. Journal of Sex Research, 38,
35–42.
Harvey, S. M., Bird, S. T., Henderson, J. T., Beckman, L. J., &
Huszti, H. C. (2004). He said, she said: Concordance between
sexual partners. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 31, 185–191.
Hoppe, M. J., Morrison, D. M., Gillmore, M. R., Beadnell, B.,
Higa, D. H., & Leigh, B. C. (2008). Agreement of daily diary
and retrospective measures of condom use. AIDS & Behavior,
12, 113–117.
Houts, L. A. (2005). But was it wanted? Young women’s first volun-
tary sexual intercourse. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 1082–1102.
Huston, T. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1991). Socioemotional behavior
and satisfaction in marital relationships: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 721–733.
Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2003). Sexual compliance: Gender,
motivational, and relationship 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 interper-
sonal well-being. Personal Relationships, 12, 465–482.
McAuliffe, T. L., DiFranceisco, W., & Reed, B. R. (2007). Effects
of question format and collection mode on the accuracy of
retrospective surveys of health risk behavior: A comparison with
daily sexual activity diaries. Health Psychology, 26, 60–67.
McCarthy, B. W. (1995). Bridges to sexual desire. Journal of Sex
Education and Therapy, 21, 132–141.
Morgan, E., Johnson, I., & Sigler, R. (2006). Gender differences in per-
ceptions of women’s participation in unwanted sexual intercourse.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 515–522.
Moyo, W., Levandowski, B. A., MacPhail, C., Rees, H., & Pettifor, A.
(2008). Consistent condom use in South African youth’s most
recent sexual relationships. AIDS & Behaviour, 12, 431–440.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Cook, S. W. (1988). Men’s self-reports of
unwanted sexual activity. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 58–72.
Neville, H. A., & Heppner, M. J. (1999). Contextualizing rape:
Reviewing sequelae and proposing a culturally inclusive ecological
model of sexual assault recovery. Applied and Preventative
Psychology, 8, 41–62.
O’Sullivan, L. F. (2005). Sexual coercion in dating relationships:
Conceptual and methodological issues. Sexual and Relationship
Therapy, 20, 3–11.
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.
 CHARACTERISTICS OF SEXUAL COMPLIANCE
O’Sullivan, L. F., Udell, W., & Patel, V. L. (2006). Young adults’
heterosexual risk encounters and perceived risk and safety: A
structured diary study. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 343–351.
Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). ‘‘Hookups’’: Charac-
teristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anon-
ymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76–88.
Peterson, Z. D., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (2007). Conceptualizing the
‘‘wantedness’’ of women’s consensual and nonconsensual sexual
experiences: Implications for how women label their experiences
with rape. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 72–88.
Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative research.
Advances in Nursing Science, 8, 27–37.
Shotland, R. L., & Goodstein, L. (1992). Sexual precedence reduces
the perceived legitimacy of sexual refusal: An examination of
attributions concerning date rape and consensual sex. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 756–764.
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 Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 226–236.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. (1984). Sexual scripts. Society, 22, 53–60.
Downloaded by [Cukurova Universitesi] at 04:58 05 November 2014
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. (1987). A sexual scripts approach. In J. Geer &
W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), Theories of human sexuality (pp. 363–383).
New York: Plenum.
Sonenstein, F. L., Pleck, J. H., & Ku, L. C. (1989). Sexual activity,
condom use and AIDS awareness among adolescent males.
Family Planning Perspectives, 21, 152–158.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological
Bulletin, 93, 119–135.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Digotas, S. M., Arriage, X. B.,
Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C. L. (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in
close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
72, 1373–1395.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and
Society, 1, 125–151.
Wingood, G. M., & DiClemente, R. J. (1998a). Gender-related
correlates and predictors of consistent condom use among
young adult African-American women: A prospective analysis.
International Journal of STDs and AIDS, 9, 139–145.
Wingood, G. M., & DiClemente, R. J. (1998b). Partner influences and
gender-related factors associated with noncondom use among
young adult African American women. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 26, 29–51.
Woolf, S. E., & Maisto, S. A. (2008). Gender differences in condom
use behavior? The role of power and partner-type. Sex Roles,
58, 689–701.
439