Gender Difference in the Evaluated Reason Why Women Refused in Sexual Behavior Situations

양동옥

doi:10.18205/kpa.2015.20.2.005

Article Contents

e-Submission

Vol.20 No.2

Citation
Share

Gender Difference in the Evaluated Reason Why Women Refused in Sexual Behavior Situations

The Korean Journal of Woman Psychology / The Korean Journal of Woman Psychology, (P)1229-0726;

2015, v.20 no.2, pp.205-224

https://doi.org/10.18205/kpa.2015.20.2.005

(2015). Gender Difference in the Evaluated Reason Why Women Refused in Sexual Behavior Situations. The Korean Journal of Woman Psychology, 20(2), 205-224, https://doi.org/10.18205/kpa.2015.20.2.005

copy

Abstract

There is a common belief that women's refusal in sexual behavior situations is not a true one. In this respect, this study aims to identify why women refuse to accept men's proposal to sexual interaction in sexual behavior situations and whether there is a difference in evaluated reason why women refuse such a proposal between men and women. Sexual behavior scenarios were presented to 152 male and female college students and asked to describe the reason why women refused as freely as they wanted. Based on this, questionable items on why women refused were organized and then sexual behavior situational scenarios were presented to 536 male and female college students and asked to evaluate the importance of the reason of women's refusal. As a result of factor analysis, the reason why women refused men's proposal could be classified into six sub-factors: ‘sense of chastity,’ ‘gender role norm,’ ‘manipulation,’ ‘relational changes,’ ‘lack of communion,’ and ‘practical issues.’ Female participants evaluated that the woman in a scenario refused man's sexual proposal for ‘sense of chastity,’ ‘relational changes,’ and ‘practical issue’ reasons more than male participants. On the other hand, male participants evaluated that the woman in the scenario refused man's sexual proposal for ‘gender role norm’ and ‘manipulation’ reasons more than female participants. Such a result was discussed with difference in sexual communication between men and women.

keywords: gender role norm, practical issue, relational changes, sexual behavior, sense of chastity, token resistant, 관계 변화, 명목상 저항, 성규범, 성행동, 순결 의식, 현실적 문제

Reference

교육부 (2015). 성교육 표준 강의안. 학생건강정책과.

김은경, 엄애선 (2010). 가정폭력 목격이 자녀의 데이트 성폭력에 영향을 미치는 과정에서 성역할태도의 매개효과. 한국심리학회지: 여성, 15, 759-777.

김정애, 이정열 (2014). 국내 대학생들의 성경험 실태 및 성경험 예측 요인 분석. 대한보건연구, 40, 71-80.

김정인, 최상진, 손영미 (2001). 성희롱문제 지각에서 성차 및 성역할태도의 영향. 한국심리학회지: 여성, 6, 1-22.

류승아, 서혜희, 정진복 (2015). 생애 주기에 따른 성과 심리. 서울: 학지사.

신경림 (2011). 대학생 성태도 실태조사. 한국건강증진개발원.

안귀여루 (2002). 이성교제 폭력행동과 관련된 개인적 변인들에 관한 연구. 한국가족복지학, 9, 54-75.

윤가현 (2006). 성문화외 심리. 서울: 학지사.

윤병해, 고재홍 (2006). 양가적 성차별 태도에 따른 성폭력 피해자에 대한 비난 차이: 강간통념의 매개효과. 한국심리학회지: 여성, 11, 1-19.

10.

이석재 (1999). 강간통념척도의 개발과 타당도 검증. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 2, 131-148.

11.

이석재, 최상진 (2001). 강간통념 수용도에 따른 성행동, 성폭력 및 성폭행사건 지각. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 15, 97-116.

12.

이재경, 조영미, 민가영, 박홍주, (이박)혜경, 이은아 (2007). 여성학. 서울: 미래M&B.

13.

이지연, 이은실 (2005). 대학생의 데이트 성폭력 피해와 가해에 대한 설명모형. 한국심리학회지: 상담 및 심리치료, 17, 419-436.

14.

전중환 역 (2007). 욕망의 진화. 서울: 사이언스북스.

15.

장휘숙, 조현각 (2001). 대학생 이성교제폭력의 실태와 위험요인들. 한국가족복지학, 8, 179-204.

16.

한국여성민우회 성폭력상담소 (2012). 데이트, 짜릿함과 난감한 사이. 20대 성적의사소통 경험과 인식에 관한 조사 자료집.

17.

Abbey, A., Buck, P. O., Zawacki, T., & Saenz, C. (2003). Alcohol's effects on perceptions of a potential date rape. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 669-677.

18.

Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., & McAuslan, P. (2000). Alcohol's effects on sexual perception. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61, 688-697.

19.

Abraham, M. (1999). Sexual abuse in South Asian immigrant marriages. Violence Against Women, 5, 591-618.

20.

Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports of rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.

21.

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2001). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. In B. Roy (Ed.), Social Psychology and human sexuality (pp. 57-94). Ann Arbor, MI: Sheridan Books.

22.

Check, J. V., & Malamuth, N. M. (1983). Sex role stereotyping and reactions to depictions of stranger versus acquaintance rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 344-356.

23.

Choi, S., Yang, D., & Youn, G. (2015). Late adolescents’ perception of their peers who report a large number of sex partners. Psychology and Behavioral Science, 4, 1-4.

24.

DeSouza, E. R., & Hutz, C. S. (1996). Reactions to refusals of sexual advances among U.S. and Brazilian men and women. Sex Roles, 34, 549-564.

25.

Fischer, G. (1996). Deceptive, verbally coercive college males: Attitudinal predictors and lies told. Archives Sexual Behavior, 25, 527-533.

26.

Garcia, L. T. (1998). Perceptions of resistance to unwanted sexual advances. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 10, 43-52.

27.

Gunter, B. (2002). Medial sex: What are the issue? NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

28.

Kalin, R., & Tilby, P. J. (1978). Development and validation of a sex role ideology scale. Psychological reports, 42, 731-738.

29.

Kanin, E. J. (1984). Date rape: Unofficial criminals and victims. Victimology, 9, 95-108.

30.

Knox, D., & Wilson, K. (1981). Dating behaviors of university students. Family Relations, 30, 255-258.

31.

Krahé, B., Scheingerger-Olwing, R., & Kolpin, S. (2000). Ambiguous communication of sexual intentions as a risk marker of sexual aggression. Sex Role, 42, 313-337.

32.

Kreager, D., & Staff, J. (2009). The sexual double standard and adolescent peer acceptance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 143-164.

33.

Lee, J., Kim, J., & Lim, H. (2010). Rape myth acceptance among Korean college students: The roles of gender, attitudes toward women, and sexual double standard. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1200-1223.

34.

Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133-164.

35.

Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 704-711.

36.

Malamuth, N. M., & Check, J. V. (1980). Sexual arousal to rape depictions: Individual differences. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 763-766.

37.

Marx, B. P., & Gross, A. M. (1995). Date rape: An analysis of two contextual variables. Behavior Modification, 19, 45-463.

38.

Muehlenhard, C. L. (2011). Examining stereotypes about token resistance to sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 676-683.

39.

Muehlenhard, C. L., & Hollabaugh, L. C. (1988). Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates women's token resistance to sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 872-879.

40.

Muehlenhard, C. L., & McCoy, M. L. (1991). Doble standard/double bind: The sexual double standard and women's communication about sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 447-461.

41.

Muehlenhard, C. L., & Rogers, C. S. (1998). Token resistance to sex: New perspectives on an old stereotype. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 443-463.

42.

Oliver, M., & Hyde, J. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29-51.

43.

Osman, S. L. (2003). Predicting men's rape perceptions based on the belief that “no” really means, “yes”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 683-692.

44.

Osman, S., & Davis, C. M. (1997). Predicting men’s perceptions of date rape using the heuristic-systematic model. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 22, 25-32.

45.

Osman, S., & Davis, C. M. (1999). Belief in token resistance and type of resistance as predictors of men’s perceptions of date rape. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 24, 189-196.

46.

O’Sullivan, L. F., & Allgeier, E. R. (1994). Disassembling a stereotype: Gender differences in the use of token resistance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1035-1055.

47.

Sprecher, S., Hatfield, E., Cortese, A., Potapova, E., & Levitskaya, A. (1994). Token resistance to sexual intercourse and consent to unwanted sexual intercourse: College student's dating experiences in three countries. The Journal of Sex Research, 31, 125-132.

48.

Taris, T., & Semin, G. (1997). Gender as a moderator of the effects of the love motive and relational context on sexual experience. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 159-180.

49.

Van Wie, V. E., & Gross, A. M. (2001). The role of woman’s explanations for refusal on men’s ability to discriminate unwanted sexual behavior in a date rape scenario. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 331-334.

50.

Van Wie, V. E., Mark, B. P., & Gross A. M. (1995). A replication of a contextual analysis of date rape. Violence Against Women, 1, 351-365.

51.

Walker, S. J. (1997). When “no” becomes “yes”: Why girls and women consent to unwanted sex. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 6, 157- 166.

52.

Woo, J. S. T., Brotto, L. A., & Gorzalka, B. B. (2011). The role of sex guilt in the relationship between culture and women’s sexual desire. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 385-394.

바로가기메뉴

Article Contents

Vol.20 No.2

Gender Difference in the Evaluated Reason Why Women Refused in Sexual Behavior Situations

Abstract

Reference

The Korean Journal of Woman Psychology