Gender Difference in Evaluating the Behavior Patterns of Who Were Rejected When Sexual Advances and the Level of Consent to Sexual Relations by Persuasion : Focusing on Romantic Relationship

양동옥

Article Contents

Prev Next

e-Submission

Vol.24 No.2

Citation
Share

Gender Difference in Evaluating the Behavior Patterns of Who Were Rejected When Sexual Advances and the Level of Consent to Sexual Relations by Persuasion : Focusing on Romantic Relationship

The Korean Journal of Woman Psychology / The Korean Journal of Woman Psychology, (P)1229-0726; (E)3058-2083

2019, v.24 no.2, pp.149-174

(2019). Gender Difference in Evaluating the Behavior Patterns of Who Were Rejected When Sexual Advances and the Level of Consent to Sexual Relations by Persuasion : Focusing on Romantic Relationship. The Korean Journal of Woman Psychology, 24(2), 149-174.

copy

Abstract

his study examined sexual communication in romantic relationship focusing on the patterns of behavior of those whose sexual advances have been rejected. Study 1 investigated the behavior patterns of those who were rejected when making sexual advances by using a romantic relationship scenario. Study 2 explored how participants predicted the behavior patterns of those who were rejected depending on the gender of the rejectee. We also analyzed how participants evaluated the level of consent to sexual relations depending on the viewpoint of those who made the sexual advance or those who compliance, when the sexual relations by persuasion. The behavior patterns of those who were rejected were classified into five factors including ‘showing discomfort and manipulation’, ‘concern about changes in relationship’, ‘approach and persuasion’, ‘respect and acceptance’, and ‘consideration of feeling.’ In condition where the man was rejected, male participants were most likely to do ‘respect and acceptance’ behavior, whereas female participants were most likely to do ‘approach and persuasion’ behavior. In condition where the woman was rejected, both male and female participants were likely to do ‘respect and acceptance’ behavior. In condition where man had a sexual relation with women through persuasion, female participants rated the perceived women's level of consent who complied with the sexual relations lower than male participants. They also rated the men's perceived women's level of consent higher than male participants. In condition where woman had a sexual relation with men through persuasion, the male participants rated the perceived man's level of consent who complied with the sexual relations higher than female counterparts. Such results were discussed in sexual scripts and cognitive dissonance, and suggested of the risk of date rape.

keywords: 데이트 성폭력, 동의 수준, 성관계 거절, 성적 의사소통, 접근과 설득, date rape, consent, persuasion, sexual communication, compliance sexual relations

Reference

공정식 (2017). 강간과 화간의 연속선상: 여성이 겉으로 ‘거절 또는 침묵’한 이유. 한국심리학회지 : 법, 8(3), 229-251.

김영희, 문승태, 강희순 (2013). 대학생의 성적자기주장에 영향을 미치는 요인. 여성건강간호학회지, 19(3), 166-175.

김정애, 이정열 (2014). 국내 대학생들의 성경험 실태 및 성경험 예측 요인 분석. 대한보건연구, 40(3), 71-80.

변혜정 (2003). ‘성폭력’ 피해구성과 그 의미에 관한 연구. 이화여자대학교 대학원 박사학위 논문.

손강숙, 정소미 (2016). 여대생의 성역할 고정관념과 데이트폭력허용도의 관계에서 성적 자기주장의 매개효과. 한국심리학회지:여성, 21(3), 441-457.

시사IN (2019.03.04.). 한국 사회 흔든 ‘성인지 감수성’. https://www.sisain.co.kr/?mod=news&act=articleView&idxno=34029

심정신, 이영숙, 오숙희 (2012). 대학생의 성역할 고정관념, 성폭력 인지도 및 성폭력허용도 관한 연구. 여성건강간호학회지, 18(2), 117-125.

안지인, 고영건 (2014). 성인의 원하지 않는 성행동 응낙과 애착이 이성관계만족에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 여성, 19(3), 233-251.

양동옥 (2015). 성행동 상황에서 여성의 거절이유 평가의 성차. 한국심리학회지: 여성, 20(2), 205-224.

10.

양동옥 (2016). 성행동 상황에서 여성의 거절평가에 주변 단서가 미치는 영향: 이성교제를 중심으로. 한국청소년학회, 23(8), 335-358.

11.

유미영, 하정희 (2019). 여대생의 거절민감성과성적 자기주장의 관계에서 단절 및 거절도식의 매개 효과. 한국심리학회지: 여성, 24(1), 47-66.

12.

유외숙, 박경 (2004). 이성교제에서 원하지 않는 성관계 요구의 응낙에 대한 설명모형. 한국심리학회지: 상담 및 심리치료, 16(4), 793-812.

13.

윤가현, 양동옥 (2016). 성 문화와 심리. 서울:학지사.

14.

이안나 (2013). 모텔 이야기: 신자유주의 시대대학생들의 모텔활용과 성적 실천의 의미변화. 여성학연구, 23(1), 41-73.

15.

이은진 (2015). 성적 자기결정권에 대한 심리학 연구. 한국심리학회지: 여성, 20(3), 427-441.

16.

이지은, 이은설 (2006). 대학생의 데이트 성폭력 피해와 가해에 대한 설명모형. 한국심리학회지: 상담 및 심리치료, 17(2), 419-436.

17.

Beres, M. (2010). Sexual miscommunication? Untangling assumptions about sexual communication between casual sex partners. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 12(1), 1-14.

18.

Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Orpaz, A. (2006). When sex is more than just sex: Attachment orientations, sexual experience, and relationship quality. Journal of personality and social psychology, 91(5), 929-943.

19.

Buss, D. M. (1989). Conflict between the sexes:Strategic interference and the evocation of anger and upset. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 734-747.

20.

DeSouza, E. R., & Hutz, C. S. (1996). Reactions to refusals of sexual advances among U. S. and Brazilian men and women. Sex Roles, 34, 549-565.

21.

Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2016). Do men and women differ in their perceptions of women’s and men’s saying “no” when they mean “yes” to sex?: An examination between and within gender. Sexuality & Culture, 20(2), 373-385.

22.

Garcia, L. T. (1998). Perceptions of resistance to unwanted sexual advances. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 10(1), 43-52.

23.

Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2002). Why some women consent to unwanted sex with a dating partner: Insights from attachment theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 360-370.

24.

Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2003). Sexual compliance: Gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 87-100.

25.

Katz, J., & Tirone, V. (2010). Going along with it: Sexually coercive partner behavior predicts dating women’s compliance with unwanted sex. Violence Against Women, 16(7), 730-742.

26.

Loshek, E., & Terrell, H. (2015). The development of Sexual Assertiveness Questionnaire(SAQ): A comprehensive measure of sexual assertive for women. Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 1017-1027.

27.

McMahon, S., & Farmer, G. L. (2011). An updated measure for assessing subtle rape myths. Social Worker Research, 35(2), 71-81.

28.

Meston, C. M., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(4), 477-507.

29.

Morokoff, P. J., Quina, K., Harlow, L. L., Whitmire, L., Grimley, D. M., Gibson, P. R., & Burkholder, G. J. (1997). Sexual Assertiveness Scale (SAS) for women:Development and validation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 73(4), 790-804.

30.

Muehlenhard, C. L. (2011). Examining stereotypes about token resistance to sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(4), 676-683.

31.

Muehlenhard, C. L., & Hollabaugh, L. C. (1988). Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women’s token resistance to sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 872-879.

32.

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(3), 447-461.

33.

Muehlenhard, C. L., & Rodgers, C. S. (1998). Token resistance to sex: New perspectives on and old stereotype. Psychology of women Quarterly, 22(3), 443-463.

34.

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(3), 234-243.

35.

Rickert, V. I., Sanghvi, R., & Wiemann, C. M. (2002). Is lack of sexual assertiveness among adolescent and young adult women a cause for concern? Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health, 34(4), 178-183.

36.

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(3), 226-236.

37.

Sprecher, S., Hatfield, E., Cortese, A., Potapova, E., & Levitskaya, A. (1994). Token resistance to sexual intercourse and consent to unwanted intercourse: College students’ dating experiences in three countries. The Journal of Sex Research, 31(2), 125-132.

38.

Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., & Anderson, P. B. (2003). Tactics of sexual coercion: When men and women won’t take no for an answer. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 76-86.

39.

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(4), 331-334.

40.

Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 13(4), 496-502.

41.

Winslett, A. H., & Gross, A. M. (2008). Sexual boundaries: An examination of the importance of talking before touching. Violence Against Women, 14(5), 542-562.

바로가기메뉴

Article Contents

Vol.24 No.2

Gender Difference in Evaluating the Behavior Patterns of Who Were Rejected When Sexual Advances and the Level of Consent to Sexual Relations by Persuasion : Focusing on Romantic Relationship

Abstract

Reference

The Korean Journal of Woman Psychology