Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences
Graduate School of Childhood Development and Education
First-time sexual experiences of same-sex attracted adolescents and young adults in the Netherlands: The role of sexual scripts
Thesis 2
Research Master in Educational Sciences: Parenting, Education and Child Development Amsterdam, July 7th, 2011
Student: Daphne van de Bongardt Student number: 0219533
E-mail: Daphne.vandeBongardt@student.uva.nl / dvdbongardt@gmail.com Supervisors: H.M.W. Bos, PhD and K.J. Jonas, PhD
Supervisor 1
Name: H.M.W. (Henny) Bos (PhD, Assistant Professor)
Research Group: Childhood Education and Family Support / Opvoedingsondersteuning (OOS) (Department of Child Development and Education, UvA)
E-mail: H.M.W.Bos@uva.nl
Phone number: 020-5251201 / 020-5251206
Supervisor 2
Name: K.J. (Kai) Jonas (PhD, Assistant Professor)
Program Group: Social Psychology (Department of Psychology, UvA) E-mail: K.J.Jonas@uva.nl
Phone number: 020-5256888
Reviewer 1
Name: R.G. (Ruben) Fukkink (PhD)
Research Group: Department of Child Development and Education, UvA E-mail: R.G.Fukkink@uva.nl
Phone number: 020-5251351 / 020-5251201
Reviewer 2
Name: M. (Mark) Spiering (PhD)
Program Group: Clinical Psychology (Department of Psychology, UvA) E-mail: M.Spiering@uva.nl
Running head: First-time sexual experiences and sexual scripts
Title: First-time sexual experiences of same-sex attracted adolescents and young adults in the Netherlands: The role of sexual scripts
Abstract
Introduction: First-time sex has been found to be strongly determined by sexual scripts. But research on early sexual experiences focuses mainly on heterosexual youth and timing of coital debut. Hence, little is known about how same-sex attracted (SSA) adolescents and young adults experience, script, and construe their sexual debut. Yet, studies have found that they ‘come-out’ earlier, have earlier sexual debuts, and that these are more often same-sex debuts. Research also indicates that SSA youth more often engage in risky sexual behaviour, get infected with STIs, and experience unwanted sex and abuse. Objectives: This qualitative study aimed to investigate first-time sexual experiences of SSA adolescents and young adults in the Netherlands, and the extent to which they use sexual scripts to frame, guide, and reflect upon these experiences. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with thirteen young gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, aged 16-21 years, with both Dutch and minority
backgrounds. The interviews were analyzed with a Grounded Theory approach, using
MAXQDA10. Results: Much evidence was found of intrapsychic, interpersonal, and cultural sexual scripts. Cultural scripts were often sources of ambiguous feelings about first-time sexual experiences. In addition, sexual risk scripts were identified, that displayed large discrepancies in risk assessment between heterosexual, female/female, and male/male sex. Certain knowledge, skills, and attitudes were considered important in order to prepare for first-time sex, and to negotiate sexual scripts. Conclusions: Same-sex attracted young people appear to use a great deal of creativity in using personalized versions of existing
heteronormative sexual scripts to frame, guide, and reflect upon their (first) sexual experiences. These insights can be valuable for improvement of health care services and sexuality education. In addition, they hold theoretical and methodological implications for future sexuality research that wants to avoid excluding non-heterosexual youth because of its narrow conceptualization of sexuality and (first) sexual experiences.
Introduction
First-time sex has long been considered a special event in young people’s lives. In various cultures, sexual debut is seen as a central and important part of the rite the passage into adulthood. Besides its social and cultural meaning, first-time sex is an important, integrated aspect of both sexual and general development. It has been found to be an important predictor of individuals’ subsequent sexual careers, including lifetime safe/risky sexual behavior or sexual problems (Sandfort, Orr, Hirsch, & Santelli, 2008; Shafii, Stovel, Davis, & Holmes, 2004). Furthermore, it has been linked to general well-being and behavior, such as substance use (Andersson-Ellström, Forssman, & Milsom, 1996), delinquency (Armour & Haynie, 2007), externalizing problems (Doneberg, Bryant, Emerson, Wilson, & Pasch, 2003), and internalizing problems (Kaltiala-Heino, Kosunen, & Rimpelä, 2003).
Sexual initiation has been researched widely (e.g., Carpenter, 2005; Cavanagh, 2004; Feldman et al., 1997; Jessor & Jessor, 1975; Lammers, Ireland, Resnick, & Blum, 2000; O’Sullivan & Brooks-Gunn, 2005). Yet the majority of studies up to now defined (first) sex as (first) vaginal penetration, and therefore heterosexual, thus excluding other
non-intercourse experiences as well as same-sex experiences. Hence, while some knowledge exists of first-time sexual experiences of heterosexual youth, such knowledge is largely non-existent for same-sex attracted youth. The aim of this study was to get more insight into the first-time sexual experiences of same-sex attracted (SSA) adolescents and young adults in the Netherlands. More specifically, the main research question was to which extent they use sexual scripts to construct (i.e., frame, guide, and reflect upon) their first-time sexual experience.
For heterosexual adolescents and young adults, research had shown that first-time sexual experiences are framed, guided, and reflected upon through sexual scripts (Krahé, Bieneck, & Scheinberger-Olwig, 2007). Sexual script theory defines sexual scripts as learned,
socially constructed, and predictable sequences according to which sexual encounters (are expected to) occur (Frith & Kitzinger, 2001; Gagnon & Simon, 1987; Simon & Gagnon, 1986, 1998, 2003). The central notion of sexual script theory is that human sexuality is learned via socialization, through culturally and historically specific messages that define what counts as sex, and what is appropriate sexual behavior (i.e., what, how, when, where, why, with whom). These messages are communicated through parents, peers, schools, and media, which have been all found to influence adolescents’ sexual attitudes and behavior (e.g., Kinsman, Romer, Furstenberg, & Schwartz, 1998; Lenciauskiene & Zaborskis, 2008; Martino, Collins, Elliott, Kanouse, & Berry, 2009; Mueller, Gavin, & Kulkarni, 2008; Peterson, 1991; Whitaker & Miller, 2000; Wight, Williamson, & Henderson, 2006). According to sexual script theory, these ideas about ‘appropriate’ sexual behavior (cultural scripts) are internalized as intrapsychic scripts (i.e., individual, personal desires, preferences, and fantasies), but also always adapted to and negotiated in particular interpersonal
situations, thus forming interpersonal scripts (i.e., patterns of interaction between individuals in sexual/intimate situations). As such, these three levels at which sexual scripts exist and operate fit very well with Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory for multi-contextual development (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994).
Sexual script research has mainly investigated scripts among heterosexual samples. It is therefore unknown whether sexual scripts are equally available for SSA youth as for their heterosexual peers. As sexual messages from parents, peers, schools, and media tend to be mostly centered around the norm of heterosexuality, and can include negativity towards non-heterosexuality, ‘same-sex-proof’ first-time scripts, i.e., ideas about how the first time is supposed to go, may be less readily available. As such, SSA young people may need to construct their first sexual behavior differently. Recent research has found that young men who have sex with men mainly learn about (their) sexuality through the internet,
pornography, more experienced partners, and sexual experience itself (Kubicek, Beyer, Weiss, Iverson, & Kipke, 2010). These young men were found to have limited or incorrect knowledge about sexual risks, and sometimes unpleasant first sexual experiences.
To explore how SSA adolescents and young adults construct first-time sex, the first goal of this study was to get more insight into what first-time experiences they have, and what they consider to be their ‘first time’. Because up to now most quantitative studies on first-time sex have focused on first heterosexual experiences (e.g., the timing of first intercourse), little is known about first-time sexual experiences of SSA adolescents and young adults. Such research appears to be based on the assumption that first sex is always experienced with an opposite-sex partner, because coming-out and thus first same-sex experiences take place at a later age. In current Western societies, however, SSA adolescents first experience same-sex attraction and ‘come out’ at increasingly earlier ages, compared to older age cohorts (Grov, Bimbi, Nanín, & Parsons, 2006; Moloney, 2007; Savin-Williams, 2005; Savin-Williams & Ream, 2006). Consequently, a growing number of SSA youth have first-time sex with a same-gender partner. In other words, more SSA adolescents seek only same-sex experiences, and do so at earlier ages. Skipping a ‘detour’ of heterosexual
experimentation implies that SSA youth may need different (i.e., nonheterosexual) sexual scripts to guide their first sexual experiences than their heterosexual peers.
The second goal was to identify evidence of the availability and use of intrapsychic, interpersonal, and cultural sexual scripts among SSA adolescents and young adults to frame, guide, and reflect upon their first sexual experience before, during and afterward, and if they exist, what their content is and what their sources are.
The third goal was to investigate whether SSA young people have sufficient sexual knowledge, skills, and attitude (script components) in order to ensure or negotiate pleasurable but also safe first experiences. Previous research and health statistics show that SSA youth
more often engage in risky sexual behavior than their heterosexual peers (Blake et al., 2001; Garofalo, Wolf, Kessel, Palfrey, & DuRant, 1998; Huebner, Rebchook, & Kegeles, 2004; Saewyc et al., 2006). Prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and risks of unwanted sexual experiences and abuse are higher. In the Netherlands, too, prevalence of sexually transmitted infections is high among SSA youth (De Graaf, Meijer, Poelman, & Vanwesenbeeck, 2005; GGD Amsterdam, 2007; Hospers, Dorfer, & Zuilhof, 2008). The coming-out phase and the period of first sexual encounters have been specifically identified as high-risk regarding HIV infection (Flowers, Smith, Sheeran, & Beail, 1998; Schilder, Spittal, & Hogg, 2002). Substance (alcohol and drug) use is also 190% higher for SSA adolescents compared to heterosexual youth (Marshal et al., 2008). Alcohol and drug use are known important predictors of risky sexual behavior (Woolf & Maisto, 2008; Calentano et al., 2006). This suggests not only that SSA young people have different needs when it comes to education, information, and health care, but also require different safety negotiation skills and scripts than heterosexual youth.
Methods Procedure
Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with fourteen same-sex attracted adolescents and young adults, aged 16 to 21 years. Permission was granted by the ethical committee of the Department of Psychology of the University of Amsterdam to include adolescents from the age of 16 without parental consent (file numbers 2008-SP-582 and 2009-SP-776). The interviewees were recruited from LGBTQ organizations, venues, and websites through flyers, e-mails, and online advertisements. During the interviews, participants were asked to discuss a range of topics, including their sexual orientation and coming out, their first sexual experience, and their conceptions of ‘the first time’. The
interviews were conducted between May and June 2010. The average interview time was 1 hour 50 minutes. All interviews were recorded with consent from the participants. Every interviewee received €10,- in cash or coupons for their participation in the study.
Participants
Initially fourteen individuals were interviewed. Yet, one of the interviewees (a 21-year old non-Western male) presented a rather extreme story about both his personal life, and his sexual experiences, which seemed exaggerated and inconsistent. This suspicion was strengthened by the interviewees own statement that his participation in this study was partially driven by the desire to practice sharing his life story for a book he wanted to write about his life. As such, this interviewees’ story was considered insufficiently reliable, and was therefore excluded from the analysis.
The final sample (n = 13) consisted of eight male and five female interviewees who identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Tables 1 and 2. Their mean age was 19.2 years (SD = 1.4). Eight participants were Caucasian Dutch, five were non-Western Dutch, i.e., had one or two parents with a Turkish, Moroccan, Surinam, Antillean, or
Indonesian background. These five participants were all born in the Netherlands themselves. Eleven participants had completed high-level secondary education, and were currently students at university or in higher vocational education. Two were still in secondary school (one high-level, one low-level). Half of the participants grew up in a city, the other half in a small town or village. Almost all of them currently lived in Amsterdam.
Twelve of the thirteen interviewees had experience with sex. Because the one interviewee without sexual experience did provide valuable insights into expectations, motivations, and also scripts preceding the first sexual experience, her story was included in the analysis. Of the sexually experienced interviewees, four (one female) only had sexual experiences with same-sex partners. The other eight (three females) also had heterosexual
experiences. See Table 2. Furthermore, half of the interviewees had their first sexual
experience with someone of the same sex (referred to as ‘same-sex first time’), the other half had their first experience with someone of the other sex (referred to as ‘heterosexual first time’). Although this study’s main focus lay on first-time same-sex experiences, those who had a heterosexual first-time were asked to share both first-time experiences. There were several reasons to do so. First of all, the interviewees saw and valued both experiences as a first-time sexual experience. Second, for many interviewees, their heterosexual first time was not just a ‘detour’. Five of the six interviewees who had a heterosexual first time had more subsequent romantic and/or sexual experiences with other opposite-sex partners, while identifying as gay or lesbian. Moreover, of the six interviewees whose first time was a same-sex experience, two (one female, one male) also had subsequent romantic and/or same-sexual heterosexual experiences. This indicates that both same-sex as well as heterosexual experiences were relevant aspects of their sexual careers. Third, prior heterosexual
experience(s) surely influenced the interviewees’ sexual scripts, and how they constructed and experienced their same-sex first time. Finally, including both same-sex and heterosexual first-time experiences provided a valuable opportunity to compare and analyze differences between these experiences, not only between-persons, but also within-persons. Therefore, both same-sex and heterosexual first-time sexual experiences were included in the analysis. Analysis
After fully transcribing the interview recordings ad verbum, the transcripts were analyzed following the guidelines of Grounded Theory (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). This approach provides an alternative to fact-obtaining and theory-testing (i.e., inductive) research methods, instead prescribing how new theories can be systematically (deductively) obtained from data (Pope, Ziebland, & Mays, 2000). First, transcripts were coded in qualitative analysis
Rexroat, 1979), which reflected possible themes of interest without strictly defining or valuing them in advance. The ‘sensitizing codes’ were used to identify themes of interest, while at the same time they were allowed to be reformulated, redefined, or revalued during the analysis process, based on patterns (differences and similarities) found in the interview data.
In order to identify evidence of scripts, the content analysis of the interview transcripts did not only focus on what the interviewees said about their sexual experiences (and other topics), but also on how the interviewees communicated about them. Communication has been argued to play an important role in the construction of sexual experiences. Frith and Kitzinger (2001) used the concept ‘script formulations’ (e.g., references to predictable stages (beginnings, middles, ends), or references to common knowledge or beliefs) to emphasize how sexual interactions are actively (re)constructed as scripted, not only through behavior, but also through talking about them.
As previous research has shown that categorical determinants such as gender and ethnicity influence young people’s sexual debut, as well as their attitudes toward sex (Cuffee, Hallfors, & Waller, 2007; Dubé & Savin-Williams, 1999; Grov et al., 2006; Valle, Torgersen, Røysamb, Klepp, & Thelle, 2005), special attention was paid in the analysis to any evidence of differences between boys/men and girls/women, as well as between Caucasian Dutch and non-Western minority interviewees.
Results First-time sexual experiences
The first goal was to get more insight into what first-time experiences they have, and what they consider to be their ‘first time’. Because the latter was found to be highly related to
sexual scripts, this will be discussed in the sexual script section. What follows is a brief summary of the interviewees’ first-time sexual experiences.
The twelve sexually experienced interviewees were between 9 and 16 years of age at the time of their first heterosexual or same-sex experience (M = 13.3; SD = 2.2). Almost all heterosexual first times consisted of vaginal intercourse at ages 13 to 15. One consisted of kisses and licks on genitals (“Mitchell: But not really giving head.”1) at age 11. The same-sex first times almost all consisted of manual and oral same-sex at ages 10 to 16. One consisted of touching at age 9, and one of anal sex at age 15. See Table 3 for an overview of the
interviewees’ first-time sexual experiences.
Sexual scripts
The second goal was to identify evidence of the availability and use of sexual scripts among SSA adolescents and young adults to frame, guide, and reflect upon their first-time sexual experiences. Contrary to the assumption that SSA youth may have sexual scripts less readily available than their heterosexual peers, the interviews in fact contained many scripts and script formulations. Although they were clearly interrelated, evidence of intrapsychic, interpersonal, and cultural scripts will be discussed separately.
Intrapsychic first-time scripts
When the interviews were analyzed for evidence of intrapsychic scripts (i.e., personal ideas, desires, preferences, and fantasies with respect to how first-time sex could or should go), the main observation was that of two patterns. First, there were interviewees who had not had clear ideas or expectations about first-time sex, because they had not yet had the personal desire or intention to have sex. Second, there were interviewees who did clearly have a
personal desire and intention to have first-time sex, and who seemed to have more clear expectations and wishes with respect to first-time sex.
The first group consisted of interviewees who said that before their first sexual experience they had not yet really been thinking or fantasizing about sex. Some had not expected or anticipated first-time sex to happen. Instead, they claimed that it had ‘just
happened’, or that they just went along with the situation: “Brigde: I didn’t really know what to expect and what to think about it, so I just kind of let it happen more than that I really realized it.”2 This was the case for both heterosexual and same-sex experiences. Yet, while those with a heterosexual first experience had felt ambiguous or even bad about the sex they had not really wanted, the early same-sex experiences had been experienced as more
naturally and positively intertwined with initiation of self-discovery and masturbation. The second group of interviewees consisted of those who had felt ready for sex, had been thinking about having sex, and were actually looking forward to having sex. One female interviewee had in fact even arranged to have first-time sex (heterosexual intercourse),
because she felt she was behind on her friends. She had had a clear film script expectation of her first-time sex:
“Mary: You do kind of expect the film image. [I: And that is?] M: Yeah that it somehow, even though you made an arrangement, suddenly proves to be very romantic, that you are completely overwhelmed, the complete picture with candles and everything, romantic music in the
background.”3
Other interviewees in this second group did not seem to have had such detailed personal desires or fantasies, however. Instead, their intrapsychic first-time scripts were much more basically related to wanting to start having sex themselves: “Masih: When you are 15, guys really do anything for it, it doesn’t matter with whom”4, or wanting to start having sex with
their romantic partner: “Naima: I thought like we are in love with each other and I like it and I would like to have sex with you. In that way, like we have a relationship and I want to be intimate with you.”5
Interpersonal first-time scripts
When analyzing the interviews for interpersonal scripts (i.e., ideas about how first-time sexual interactions could or should go), several themes were identified. These themes were: knowing what to do; experimentation and trial-and-error; role divisions between a leading and following partner; and equal partnership.
Knowing what to do: Same-sex, easy sex?
When the interviewees were asked whether and how they had known what to do during first-time sex, their answers revealed clear gender differences. Some interviewees, mainly males, argued that knowing what to do was easy with same-sex partners because of anatomy
similarities: “Walter: I think mainly because you just know how a guy’s body works, and that is just why you know what to do. To me, that seems a lot more difficult between two sexes.”6 Hence, some argued manual sex with another male was practically the same as masturbating, but then on someone else.
This ‘same sex equals same body and thus same preferences’ script was nuanced by some of the female interviewees, however. They emphasized that all females are different with respect to their bodies and preferences, and that knowing your own body is no guarantee for knowing your female partner’s preferences. One of them argued that knowledge about female sexuality is generally less readily available than information about male
“Brigde: You actually only have ideas about guys and what you have to do. And you read more about guys, you hear things about guys. But about females nothing at all. So then you just have to figure it out yourself.”7
In order to learn what to do with a new (e.g., first-time) female partner, one of the female interviewees emphasized the importance of communication: “Naima: I’ve always said like: just say what you want, then I try to do it as good as possible.”8 Another argued that learning what to do can also be a non-verbal process: “Meg: I think that that is a natural instinct or something, that you can feel it whether someone doesn’t like something, also without words; non-verbal communication.”9 However, most interviewees, both males and females, said they had not really communicated with their partners about what to do during their first sexual experiences. It seemed that first time sex was not about ‘doing it right’, but perhaps more about learning how to do it right by trying and experimenting.
Experimentation, trial-and-error
Indeed, despite notions that same-sex may or may not be easy, the first sexual experiences of the interviewees appeared to have a largely experimental and trial-and-error character. Evidence of this was found in both heterosexual as well as same-sex first-time experiences: “Mary: We both had no idea what we were doing”10 and “Bridge: Well, eventually it was just dummy sex of course.”11 In one case, experimentation and learning was in fact exactly what the experience was about: “Kavi: It was kind of a learning process: he kind of showed it first, and then he said like you do it too (…) He was experimenting and I learned along with him.”12 Most interviewees saw the experimental and trial-and-error character of first-time sexual experiences as something natural. They considered first-time sex per definition an experience to learn from, and a source of sexual knowledge, skills, and scripts, applicable to and expendable through subsequent sexual experiences.
Role division: leading and following partner
In many interviewees’ narratives, evidence was also found of role divisions between an initiating/leading partner and a following partner. This kind of role division was found in both same-sex and heterosexual interactions. Contrary to what could be expected, however, these role divisions were not always clearly based on gender, age, or prior experience.
In case of the heterosexual first-time experiences, the age differences between the interviewees and their partners followed the general trend of younger females and older males (Mfemales = 13.2 versus Mmales = 14.5). Yet, the patterns of initiative and taking the lead
varied. In some cases, it had been the older males (experienced or not) who had initiated sex. In other cases, however, as was discussed above, the males had not really wanted to have sex, and were not really sure why it had happened or who initiated it. Then there were also
experiences where the initiative to have sex and the leading role appeared to be more equally shared between the male and female partner.
In case of the same-sex experiences, role divisions were mainly observed in the
male/male interactions, where age differences were relatively large (Minterviewees = 14.8 versus
Mpartners = 19.3). Here, it were often the older and sexually experienced male partners who
took the initiative and the lead. In Kavi’s case, however, his seven year older male partner (his cousin) took the lead, even though he himself also had no sexual experience yet: “Kavi: Yeah, he took the lead. Because I knew absolutely nothing, and I was very shy. So he took the lead, and I just started discovering.” This was different for Ajay. While his first-time male partner was ten years older and sexually experienced, he let Ajay lead the experience: “Ajay: No, he didn’t take the lead. I found that kind of funny. He just really let me do my thing, so to say. Like what I, how I wanted to proceed.”13 This suggests that differences in age and prior experience do not rule out equal partnership interactions (more about this below).
Most of the interviewees saw having an older, sexually experienced, initiating, and leading partner during their first sexual experience as something positive. They said it had been pleasant, easy, and safe that their experienced partner took the initiative and the lead during the experience:
“Mitchell: I found it kind of scary, and because of that had trouble taking the initiative, even though I had decided for myself that if it happens, then I do want it and then I would also like it. (…) So in that sense I am glad that he took the initiative, absolutely, yeah, that made it easier.”14
Walter, however, also saw possible downsides to having a more experienced first-time partner, and was not sure what he preferred:
“Walter: I don’t know what it’s like if during the first time the other person is much more experienced. I don’t know, perhaps that is also nice because you can learn a lot from that. But perhaps you’re more likely to think like wow he’s good, and wow I’m bad, I don’t know.”15
Equal partnership
Despite evidence of role divisions during first-time sex, almost all interviewees said they had felt that they had an equal relationship with their first-time sexual partner. Their narratives also clearly revealed equal partnership during the sexual interactions. First, there was
evidence of equal turn-taking: “Mitchell: We kind of took turns: then I went a bit further, and then she went a bit further”16, and “Masih: It was constantly like who went down went down, who went up went up.”17 Second, there was evidence of regard for each other’s preferences and boundaries: “Naima: I asked like what do you enjoy. Where should I go”18, and “Ajay: That is something I just always do, than I just ask when we are having sex like ‘you don’t mind this, do you?’”19 Examples of equal partnership interactions were found in both
same-sex and heterosame-sexual experiences. Yet, first-time experiences where both partners had an orgasm (certainly not a prerequisite, but nonetheless a possible indication of -mutual- pleasure) were more common among same-sex experiences.
Cultural first-time scripts
In addition to intrapsychic and interpersonal scripts, the interviewees’ narratives contained many references to cultural first-time scripts (i.e., general ideas about expectable and appropriate first-time sexual behavior). In almost all cases these cultural script references were inherently accompanied by ambiguous feelings from the interviewees about whether they could see their first experience as something positive or acceptable. These internal conflicts resulted from antagonisms between existing general ideas about first-time sex, on the one hand, and the interviewees’ own thoughts, beliefs, and actual experiences, on the other hand. Four such main script conflicts were found in the interviewees’ stories. The first had to do with what counts as (first-time) sex. The others were related to when, with whom, and where it is alright to have (first-time) sex.
Cultural script 1: What counts as first-time sex
When the interviewees were asked to describe their first sexual experience, some of them asked for further clarification which experience they were expected to share. When they were explained that they were free to decide what they considered to be sex and their first time, several revealed uncertainty about what counted as ‘sex’, and what could thus be considered their ‘first time’. For some, this had to do very specifically with the type of sexual behavior: “Naima: I always wonder, considering the whole nipple thing, then I think to myself like: was that sex?”20 For others, this difficulty defining sex seemed to exist especially for same-sex experiences:
“Mary: I find it difficult to define sex. (…) I think that [manual sex with a female] is sex but also not. It’s those hetero images that are there. You are intimate together, and you have a moment that you share. And yet there is no penetration.”21
Mary was one of the five interviewees who presented heterosexual vaginal intercourse as their first sexual experience (see Table 3). Although most of these first intercourse
experiences also included manual and oral sex, this was not really discussed by these interviewees as a central component of their first sex. Moreover, while several interviewees referred to manual or oral experiences with their sexual partner (in all cases a romantic partner, i.e., boy- or girlfriend) before they started having intercourse, they all presented the first intercourse as their first real sexual experience:
“[I: In those two months that you had been dating, (…) did other things happen, touching for instance?] Bridge: No, not really. Well, just cuddling and stuff like that, and lying in bed with each other, but not ‘the deed’ so to say, haha. [I: And also no sexual touching?] B: Oh yes, that perhaps. Yeah, not really ‘sex’ so to say.”22
This was different for the first same-sex experiences, where manual and oral sex did count as sex and a ‘first time’ (see Table 3). This was the case for both males and females, and also for those who had heterosexual intercourse before. Only one male interviewee had anal intercourse during his first same-sex experience (it was unclear whether this was
insertive of perceptive). While all other male interviewees also had experience with anal sex, none presented their first anal intercourse as their first same-sex experience, suggesting perhaps a greater importance of a first experience with someone of the same sex, than of the actual sexual action that was performed.
An underlying difficulty in deciding what counted as ‘sex’ and ‘the first time’ seemed to be related to the limited applicability of existing heterosexual scripts (cultural scripts on what counts as heterosexual sex) to same-sex experiences. One example mentioned was an often used metaphor for sexual behavior in heterosexual scripts: the ‘base system’, which prescribes a stepwise script for sexual experience, where first base stands for kissing, second base for manual sex, third base for oral sex, and fourth base for intercourse. While originating from the United States, where baseball is a popular sport, Dutch youth too have long
acculturated and used this base system script as a metaphor for sexual experience, using the Dutch term for base: ‘honk’. In this sample too, one of the male interviewees automatically used the base system script to talk about his first same-sex experience: “Walter: I would say handwork, haha. Yeah, we always thought in bases, that’s always easy, 1, 2, 3, 4, so second base.”23 One of the female interviewees, on the other hand, said she found it difficult to apply the base system script to female same-sex experiences:
“Mary: With us there is no ‘base’ system, we went to second base, but not three and four. So that’s not correct somehow, and at the same time it is. And yes, I am not quite sure myself, what that is.”24
She more specifically referred to the notion in the heterosexual base system script that anything before fourth base (intercourse) is often not yet considered ‘sex’. This notion was also clearly displayed by the interviewees who presented vaginal intercourse as their first sexual experience, despite having had earlier manual and/or oral sexual experiences.
Considering the fact that Mary and Walter had such different approaches toward the base system script, one considering it limiting, the other using it without any difficulty, it could be argued that the base system script is perhaps more readily applicable to male/male sex than to female/female sex. Although fourth base possibilities exist for female/female sex
too, a fourth base is perhaps more obvious or accepted for male/male sex. However, one of the other female interviewees told about how her first girlfriend had also used the base system script, and turned it into a game that also applied to (female/female) same-sex experiences:
“Meg: She played a game with her hetero friends, the base game, and then you got points. And she had thought of the rule that if you went to one of the bases with someone of the same sex, then you got double points.”25
Meg’s anecdote shows a great deal of creativity and flexibility of SSA young people to transform and apply heterosexual scripts to their own same-sex experiences. Such creativity and flexibility may serve as a ‘coping skill’ to deal with conflicting cultural sexual scripts.
Cultural script 2: When it is alright to have first-time sex
Besides conflicts about what counts as sex, several interviewees mentioned conflicting thoughts about when it is alright to have sex. As was mentioned above, the twelve
interviewees had been between 9 and 16 years of age (M = 13.3; SD = 2.2) at the time of their first sexual experience (heterosexual or same-sex). Four of them had the experience while being in primary school, and eight while being in secondary school. There was no real age difference between the six heterosexual experiences (range: 11-15 years; M = 13.5; SD = 1.5) and the six same-sex experiences (range: 9-16 years; M = 13.2, SD = 2.9), except for the more varying age at the time of the same-sex experiences. Those who had heterosexual sex first, had their same-sex debut on average about three years after their heterosexual debut (range: 15-19 years; M = 16.5, SD = 1.6). See Tables 2 and 3.
Some interviewees had ambiguous feelings about the timing (i.e., age and/or
the youngest first-time experiences in the sample. One of them seemed to use a ‘children are not sexual’ script when reflected on his sexual debut at age 10: “Timothy: A little ambiguous of course, because I was a child after all. And from my perspective now, I think like yeah, if I see a 10-year old child now, then I find that a bizarre idea.”26 He emphasized, however, that the experience had happened very naturally and without any pressure from his eleven year old male sex partner. Kavi, who reported the youngest experience in the sample at age 9, said that he himself did not have ambiguous feelings about the timing of his first experience with his seven year older male cousin. Instead, he was confronted with a ‘young sex is unwanted sex’ script by an external source, i.e. an older female cousin: “Kavi: She immediately started screaming that it was child abuse.”27 Kavi did not agree with this view, emphasizing that his experience did not involve pressure from his partner. Instead of internalizing his female cousin’s view, he embraced his agency and the experience, but her reaction did lead him to keep his experience to himself: “I don’t see it like that, that’s why I didn’t tell anyone else.”28
Age script conflicts were not only found among the youngest experiences. One of the female interviewees said in retrospect she was not sure whether she had been ‘ready’ for her first sexual experience at age 14 (one-time intercourse with a male class mate). At the same time she also critically reflected on this ‘readiness script’, which states that you are supposed to have sex only when you are ‘ready’ for it:
“Mary: I always think like, people say like yeah you have to wait until you’re ready for it. But I don’t know if you ever (…) I really wonder how that would go, that you suddenly think ‘o now I am ready for it’. That’s just, that seems really odd to me.”29
Although she had been older at the time of her first sexual experience, Mary evaluated her first experience more negatively than Timothy and Kavi. While this also had to do with her disappointment in the experience and her sexual partner, perhaps the physical (and
socially constructed) intrusiveness of intercourse compared to manual sex calls for a different kind of ‘readiness’. Nonetheless, in all three cases the interviewees seemed to have dealt with the experienced age script conflicts by justifying their experience and the age at which this took place.
Cultural script 3: With whom it is alright to have first-time sex
Several interviewees also mentioned script conflicts about with whom it is alright to have sex, i.e., with what kind of partner in what kind of relationship first-time sex is acceptable. Of the six heterosexual first-time experiences, four (one female) took place within a romantic relationship with a boy- or girlfriend. Mostly first-time sex happened several months into the relationship. In one case it happened after several years of childhood love. Of the twelve same-sex first-time experiences, only three experiences took place within a romantic
relationship. These were all female experiences. (See Table 3 for an overview of all first-time partners and relationships.)
One of the male interviewees explained that he had had ambiguous feelings right after his first same-sex experience, because he had (first-time) sex with someone he had met online one or two weeks before, and never seen before that day:
“Walter: I thought like this is not how it’s supposed to go, or something. (…) Because you are supposed to have a relationship first, and you are supposed to know each other longer first, yeah, something like that. I felt it went kind of fast, so to say.”30
Walter explained that he had learned this cultural script of ‘how it is supposed to go’ through messages from his parents (“Walter: Like first you start a relationship, and then you give each other a kiss, and then… you know.”31); his friends’ behavior (“Walter: I knew no-one at that time who thought something like oh you know someone one day and hop, you know, at
age 15.”32); and from what he saw around him (“Walter: That’s kind of how it’s supposed to go in society or something.”33). Walter’s relationship script conflict was short-lived,
however: “Walter: two days later I felt like yeah, you’re not supposed to, what you’re not supposed to, you know, if it feels good it’s alright.”34 In fact, later on Walter preferred casual sex over relationships.
There were, however, several male interviewees who argued it was good (better) and nice (nicer) to have first-time sex with a partner you know, like, trust, have chemistry with, or with whom you are in love. But there were also interviewees, also females, who believed it was alright to have first-time sex with a partner you do not know (that long yet). Some even argued that there is less opportunity for high expectations or pressure to build up (e.g., to want to do it right) when you have sex with someone you just met. In Shadi’s case, his opinion about casual sex changed after having had an unwanted first same-sex experience (more about this below). This experience made him only want to have sex with someone with whom he had an emotional bound, in order to avoid ever having another unwanted
experience again:
“Shadi: I only have sex with someone I care about. And not like I don’t know you, let’s just… Look, the first time it happened because I was just curious. But I would never, really never never do it again. [I: Is that also because that first experience was unpleasant?] Shadi: Yes. [I: And then for you the link was made that this can happen if you are not in love?] Shadi: Yes. [I: So that experience influenced you in that way?] Shadi: For sure, yes.”35
Cultural script 4: Where it is alright to have first-time sex
In terms of locations for first-time sex, one relevant cultural script was found. This script was related to parents allowing same-sex sleep-overs. Almost all first-time experiences
sleep-over. Generally, interviewees’ parents had been aware of the sleep-over, though not necessarily of the nature of the sleep-over, or even the nature of the relationship. Some interviewees argued that parents allowing same-sex sleep-overs was in fact an advantage for SSA young people:
“Meg: I think that it makes a big difference that I’m gay, because my parents would never have allowed me to take a guy to the guestroom at age 15 on the first day I met him. But with females they actually never had a problem. (…) My sister was really not allowed the first time with her boyfriend, while everyone I brought home could just sleep in my bed, always.”36
“Walter: I knew many friends, guys and girls who had a relationship, and whose parents were very strict like you can’t sleep together and stuff like that. (…) It is sort of much less of an issue to have just two guys.”37
According to Meg and Walter, parents’ ease toward same-sex sleep-overs had largely to do with the nonexistent pregnancy risk. In addition, they argued it was difficult for parents to make a distinction between same-sex friends and potential same-sex romantic and/or sexual partners: “Walter: Yeah you know, the previous day I had a friend sleep over, so then it’s like why can all your friends sleep over, but then suddenly not him.”38 Surely, this social norm (cultural script) that same-sex sleep-overs are not necessarily sexual, relatively safe, acceptable, and normal, enables a safe setting for (first-time) same-sex experiences at home.
The parental home was not a safe or preferable sexual place for all interviewees. A few said they had purposely chosen another location so that they did not need to inform their parents about their experience, their partner, or their relationship. This was the case for both heterosexual and same-sex experiences. Some had an older (male) partner who already lived by himself, and had their first experience there. One male interviewee told about how he had decided to meet his male internet date in a bar, and to lie to his parents about where he was
going and with whom, because they were not very accepting of his homosexuality. That night, he had first-time sex with his date in a public city park. Afterward, Albert had mixed feelings about having his first sexual experience at this location, for two reasons. First, he didn’t like the lack of comfort and privacy. The open and public space had made him unable to feel safe or to relax: “Albert: I was very nervous, I was afraid someone would see us.”39 Second, he found it difficult to unite his experience with internalized stereotypes of gay men and public sex: “Albert: In retrospect I also think, yeah a park, I also don’t want to think about those stereotypes of those gays who are doing each other in the bushes.”40 Although Albert said he did not really regret having first-time sex in a park, he did emphasize he would have preferred it happening (i.e., being able to happen) in his own bed at home.
Same-sex, risky sex?
When the interviewees were asked about risky sexual behavior and safety measures during first-time sex, their answers revealed clear underlying risk scripts. The underlying
heterosexual risk script displayed by the interviewees focused mainly on STI and pregnancy risks. In most of the heterosexual first-time experiences (heterosexual intercourse), safety measures were used to protect against STI transmission and unwanted pregnancy. Four of the five had used a condom, and in one case the interviewees’ girlfriend had also been using the pill. (One male interviewee had not used a condom during his first intercourse, and it was unclear whether his girlfriend had been using other birth control.) The underlying same-sex risk scripts displayed by the interviewees were clearly divided into a female/female sex risk script, and a male/male sex risk script.
Female/female sex risk script
The main notion in the female/female sex risk script that was revealed by the interviewees’ narratives, was that female/female sex is safe and riskless. All interviewed females said that they rarely or never thought about same-sex risks, and also found that irrelevant. In the first place because, contrary to heterosexual sex, female/female sex does not involve a pregnancy risk. Besides that, most of the females believed STI risks were low for female/female sex. They gave two types of arguments for this. First, some argued that female/female STI prevalence is lower because females are less promiscuous than men. Second, some argued that female/female STI transfer risks are lower because female/female sex does not involve sperm, and because it rarely involves direct contact between genitals.
The interviewed females argued sex with another female ‘just felt safe’. When they were asked whether they would feel equally safe (with respect to STIs) with female partners who also had experience with heterosexual sex, as with females who only had female/female sex, they either said they had not thought about this, or that they would indeed feel equally safe. This was also the case for Naima, who had a girlfriend with previous heterosexual sex experience:
“[I: Did you talk to her about risks, whether she had ever been tested for instance?] Naima: No. Only that I found it a pity that there have been so many. [I: Did she have safe sex with those guys? Do you know?] Naima: I don’t know whether she had safe sex with all of them.”41
Another aspect of the female/female sex risk script found in all female interviewees’ stories was ambiguity or negativity towards dental dam use. One of the females humorously talked about existing prejudices toward dental dams:
“Meg: The word dental dam [beflapje in Dutch] is also really gross, so yeah that is also not really, I just find it a dirty word. And it has the size of a [computer] keyboard (…) yeah like from your back to your belly button. I have never seen one for real, but yeah. So that doesn’t really appeal to me.”42
Although all female interviewees were aware of the existence of dental dams, none of them had ever used or even seen one. Moreover, none of them were planning on ever using one either. Also, none of them had ever gotten tested for STIs, even though two had had
intercourse with a male partner. Most of them believed that getting tested was not necessary. Several females argued that an important reason for their beliefs about female/female sex being risk-less, was that they never really heard about female/female sex risk, either in school, on television, or from parents or friends: “Mary: I had no clue that you can get STIs from a woman with a woman. That was never discussed in school.”43 They argued it would be good for sexuality education to include attention for the transference of STIs through oral sex with women, and the use of protection during lesbian sex.
Male/male sex risk script
The main notion in the male/male sex risk script was that male/male sex is unsafe and risky. There seemed to be a consensus among all interviewees, both males and females, that thinking about sexual risks was more relevant and important for male/male sex than for female/female sex: “Naima: I think that’s more something for my male colleagues, haha. [I: Gays you mean?] N: Yes. That it [sex] is more dangerous for them.”44 The prevalence of STIs was estimated (much) larger among MSM, and the STI transmission risks were considered larger for male/male sex than for female/female (or heterosexual) sex.
The male/male risk sex script focused mainly on anal sex. Almost all interviewed males said they always used condoms during anal sex. (It was unclear whether the male
interviewee whose first same-sex experience was unwanted anal intercourse, or his partner, had used a condom during this experience.) None of the male interviewees, however, used condoms for (first-time) manual sex, which they saw as something risk-less. They also did not use condoms for (first-time) oral sex. Receiving oral sex with a condom was not
considered pleasurable, and the risk of transmitting an STI through oral-genital contact was considered small.
HIV was considered the most serious (i.e., dangerous, scary) STI risk for MSM, a notion that sometimes overshadowed the interviewees’ understanding of other STI risks:
“Albert: AIDS is like the biggest thing you could get, and further I think with all other STIs, but maybe I don’t know enough about it, at a certain point you notice something is wrong. I think well at that point I will go. But those are not such serious STIs that I find it necessary to get tested a lot for them. I am also a little bit lazy. And I also think like yeah, I mean it’s the same as other diseases, they can be cured. But with AIDS that is a different story.”45
Getting tested for HIV and other STIs was considered important for MSM. Almost all interviewed males had been tested for STIs/HIV at least once. Only one interviewee said he once got tested because he had symptoms. None of them said they had ever been diagnosed with an STI.
Substance use
Perhaps coherent with their internalized ‘male/male sex is risky sex’-script, it were the male interviewees who mentioned several additional sexual risks besides STI/HIV risks. Although these could also be applicable to female/female and heterosexual sex, in the interviews they were related specifically to male/male sex. The first was that of substance (i.e., alcohol and drug) use during sex:
“Masih: That is never discussed, but that is, I think… (…) Well that is very risky, I mean there are many people who, because of too much coke or mixing too much weed and alcohol or something, do it unsafely. (…) And I know that in the gay scene an unbelievable amount of pills and drugs and all of that is used, both outside sex as well as during sex.”46
While none of the interviewees said they had used drugs during their first sexual experience, three of them had been under the influence of alcohol (‘slightly intoxicated’ or ‘drunk’). Two of these experiences were same-sex experiences; one male/male, one
female/female. While both experiences had questionable aspects (i.e., having first-time sex while not being attracted to the partner, or having first-time sex in a public city park), the interviewees had not experienced the influence of alcohol as problematic or risky. To the contrary: “Meg: Perhaps it made it a little bit easier, a sort of rush because of the alcohol.”47
Internet dating
The second additional risk that was mentioned by one of the male interviewees, was the potential risk of online meetings. The biggest risk mentioned was that of ‘fakers’, i.e., persons pretending to be someone/something they are not. Shadi emphasized the importance of several safety measures or rules to make online meetings safe(r), which were: getting to know someone before a real-life meeting; seeing the other person through a webcam, preferably while calling on the phone; and meeting in a safe place.
These online meeting safety measures or rules were not fully applied by the
interviewees (n = 4, one female) who had their first same-sex experience with someone they had met online (n = 3 GLB forum, n = 1 dating site). None of these interviewees discussed or mentioned having thought about possible internet dating risks themselves during the
risky aspects of their online meetings could be identified. First, while the first dates (and first sex) with ‘GLB forum partners’ were preceded by several weeks to several months of online chat contact to get to know each other, one of the first dates (including first sex) took place only one day after the online meeting. Also, none of the interviewees had webcam contact to verify their partner’s identity.
Unwanted sex
The third additional risk, unwanted sex, was mentioned by two non-Western male
interviewees, one warning about unwanted sex, the other having experienced unwanted sex himself. Ajay emphasized the importance of preventing forced, unpleasant, and unwanted sexual experiences:
“Ajay: [it is] really important that you enjoy it, and that afterwards you don’t think like yeah, he forced me and it was unpleasant. (…) you just really have to both enjoy it. (…) don’t let yourself be forced.”48
This was a message he had partially gotten from his ten year older male partner, with whom he had been in a happy monogamous relationship with for three years already.
Shadi, the youngest interviewee in the sample, had an unwanted sex experience. In fact, his very first same-sex experience had been unwanted. He had been 15 when he met his 24-year old first-time male partner, who pressured/forced him into first-time anal sex during their first date:
“Shadi: He really wanted it, but I actually didn’t really know what it [anal sex] entailed. Then he said: yeah, you must really try it. (…) [I: So he pressured/forced you, and eventually he also succeeded?] Shadi: Yes. [I: So that was not a pleasant experience?] Shadi: No.”49
Because of Shadi’s explicit and logical reluctance to elaborate about his experience, which happened about a year before the interview, much remained unknown about his experience.
Preparing for first-time sex
The third goal was to investigate whether SSA young people have sufficient sexual
knowledge, skills, and attitude (script components) in order to ensure or negotiate pleasurable but also safe first experiences. The interviewees were asked whether they believed it would be possible, useful, or necessary to prepare for first-time sex. More specifically, they were asked whether they thought certain knowledge, skills, or attitudes (perhaps script
components) could enhance a positive, pleasurable, and safe first same-sex experience. Regarding this, the interviewees’ opinions differed. Some argued preparation for first-time sex was unnecessary, because it is exactly the goal of first-time sex to acquire new
knowledge, skills, and attitude. Others did find it important to prepare for first-time sex, and mentioned several types of knowledge, skills, and attitude that they considered useful for first-time experiences. Although they discussed many things that are applicable to all first sexual experiences, both heterosexual and same-sex, here only specific same-sex related points will be discussed.
Important first-time same-sex knowledge
With respect to first-time knowledge, what was mentioned first of all and by several
interviewees was that before SSA young people can have same-sex experiences, they need to know that homosexuality exists. Although seemingly basic knowledge, this was something multiple interviewees said they themselves did not know when they started realizing and
reflecting on their sexual orientation. Mostly because they did not know any other gays or lesbians, for instance because of growing up in small villages, nor heard about homosexuality from parents, friends, on TV, or in school. Hence, the internet became their most important source for learning about homosexuality and meeting others:
“Kavi: It is surely nice to go searching on the internet, because then you notice that you’re not the only one with questions, and that a lot is happening around you, and that you’re not the only one who is different.”50
Some of the interviewed females also mentioned women’s soccer as an important place to meet other lesbian or bisexual girls and women for the first time, and learn about
homosexuality. All interviewees believed learning about homosexuality in school was very important, and should be improved.
Second, it was considered important that SSA young people know before first-time sex that sex between two women or two men is possible, and moreover, what sexual things you can do between two women or two men. Those who had received sexuality education in school (most) or from parents (some) had only learned about heterosexual relationships and sex. Consequently, many said they had learned what sexual things two men or two women can do mainly through porn. Almost all of them argued, however, that learning from porn has its limitations, as it often displays an unrealistic image of sex. They all said they would have liked to learn (much more) about gay and lesbian sex in school, and also about the possible risks and safety measures specifically related to that.
Important first-time same-sex skills
The interviewees also mentioned several skills they considered particularly important for SSA young people and their first-time sex. These skills could be divided into personal skills and interaction skills.
One of the most important personal skills mentioned by the interviewees was the ability to follow your own judgment, make your own decisions, and get loose from general ideas (cultural scripts) about what is right and wrong (e.g., when to have sex, with whom to have sex, where to have sex, et cetera). Agency in (first-time) sexual experiences was considered especially important for SSA young people, as they are more likely to experience or
encounter ambiguous feelings about their experience.
Second, it was considered especially important for SSA young people to know and be able to guard their own boundaries, and to not let themselves be pressured or forced into something they do not want.
Important first-time same-sex attitudes
Besides knowledge and skills, many interviewees strongly emphasized the importance of certain attitudes when having first-time sex, i.e., certain socio-emotional approaches towards first-time sex, same-sex experiences, and sex in general. The most important attitude
specifically for SSA young people mentioned, was that of self-acceptance of one’s same-sex attraction. Several interviewees told about how they themselves had had some
self-acceptance issues in this regard. For all of them their first same-sex experience was strongly intertwined with their process of same-sex attraction discovery, exploration, and acceptance. First sex was, in fact, often an important step in this process. While the interviewees said it was important to have this self-acceptance before first sex, for most this came after the experience, after they had persuaded themselves that their experience was okay, alright, and acceptable, and that their same-sex attraction was okay, alright, and normal.
Discussion
This study aimed to get more insight into first-time sexual experiences of same-sex attracted adolescents and young adults in the Netherlands, and the extent to which sexual scripts are available and used to frame, guide, and reflect upon (i.e., construct) these experiences. It was assumed that first-time scripts (i.e., ideas about how first-time sex is supposed to go) could be less readily available to SSA young people than to their heterosexual counterparts, because of the mainly heteronormative sexual socialization through parents, peers, education, and media.
To investigate the validity of this assumption, in the current study thirteen gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents and young adults aged 16 to 21 were interviewed about their first sexual experiences. Half of them had a heterosexual first-time experience, the other half a same-sex first-time experience. The interviewees had first sex at varying ages of 9 to 16 years of age. Ages at first heterosexual and same-sex experiences were similar.
The young ages at which some experiences took place match research findings that first sex occurs at increasingly younger ages (Wells & Twenge, 2005). In this respect, it seems that sexual debut may rather become an aspect of the rite the passage into adolescence instead of adulthood, and may as such fulfill very different functions entirely. This seemed to be especially the case for early same-sex experiences, which had been experienced as naturally and positively intertwined with initiation of self-discovery and masturbation. Thus, while previous research found that early sexual debut is associated with long-term negative health outcomes (e.g., increased sexual risk behaviors and problems in sexual functioning)
(Sandfort, Orr, Hirsch, & Santelli, 2008), this may be different for SSA individuals.
Contrary to what was assumed, it was evident that sexual scripts played a large role in the interviewees’ first sexual experiences. With regard to intrapsychic scripts, a pattern was found that showed that first-time sex can happen regardless of having a personal desire to have sex, or clear ideas about what first-time sex could or should be like.
Regarding interpersonal scripts, several themes were identified. Male interviewees argued that knowing what to do during same-sex first sex was easier than during heterosexual sex because of anatomy similarities. Female interviewees argued against this, emphasizing the unknown character of female sexuality. All first-time experiences appeared to have a largely experimental and trial-and-error character, something that most interviewees seemed to naturally accept as a normal matter of fact. They were generally guided by one leading partner, who was often more experienced, but not always. Despite this role division, equal partnership seemed to be another main characteristic of the interviewees’ first sexual experiences. All in all, although it could be expected that same-sex experiences call for different negotiations of role divisions during the sexual encounter, the interviewees’ first-time sexual interactions seemed to have unfolded quite automatically and naturally ‘on the scene’, mostly without many conflicts or difficulties. Thus, while in the qualitative study of Flowers et al. (1998) gay men reported feelings of disempowerment with their first same sex partner due to their lack of experience, such feelings were not explicitly expressed in this sample of young GLBs.
Much evidence was found of the role of cultural scripts, and especially of them being sources of ambiguous feelings about first-time sex. Cultural script conflicts were mentioned with respect to what counts as sex, when it is alright to have sex, with whom it is alright to have sex, and where it is alright to have sex. Most of the interviewees’ script conflicts seemed to be rather easily dealt with or solved, by them embracing their own personalized ideas about what kind of (first) sexual experience is acceptable or good. SSA young people clearly appear to have great creativity and flexibility in adapting and personalizing culturally available sexual messages from peers, parents, teachers, and the media that tend to see heterosexuality and heterosexual sex the norm.
With respect to risky sexual behavior and safety measures, there was a clear distinction between heterosexual and same-sex time experiences. In most of the heterosexual first-time experiences (heterosexual intercourse), safety measures were used to protect against STI transmission and unwanted pregnancy. In case of the same-sex first-time experiences
(manual or oral sex), however, none of the interviewees had used any safety measure to protect themselves from STIs, or even considered thinking or talking about STI risks
relevant. The interviews revealed more general same-sex risk scripts, one for female/female sex, and one for male/male sex. Female/female sex was seen as riskless and safe. Male/male sex was seen as implicitly risky. Such risk scripts may shed light on the high prevalence of risky sexual behavior and STI’s among SSA youth.
Besides STIs, several other sex-related risks were mentioned specifically for SSA youth, especially male/male sex. These were: substance (alcohol and drug) use, internet dating, and unwanted sex. One fourth of the current sample experienced first sex while being under the influence of alcohol. This seems in line with research findings that substance use is high among SSA adolescents compared to heterosexual youth (Marshal et al., 2008). While at first this seems alarming, the interviewees’ own experiences indicated otherwise. According to their stories, alcohol could be a means to relax and can make first sexual experience easier, without compromising safety (condom use). This raises questions about general attitudes towards alcohol and drug use during sex among SSA youth, and the perhaps positive role of substance use in their sexual scripts.
Four first same-sex experiences were with someone met online. This is in line with research findings that the internet has become an increasingly important venue for (especially young) MSM to meet sex partners (Grov, Parsons, & Bimbi, 2007), and that GLBs are more likely than heterosexuals to have offline meetings and sex with someone met online (Lever, Grov, Royce, & Gillespie, 2008). While the internet provides a good stage for SSA young
people to find a partner, it also carries potential risks. Men who seek partners online have for instance been found to report a greater number of partners, more casual sex partners, more unprotected sex, and more previous STIs (Grov et al., 2007). While the interviewees’ did not experience negative outcomes from their sexual experience with someone met online, their approach towards their online meetings (i.e., not ruling out fakers by checking the person’s identity) could have facilitated risks.
One of the interviewees had an unwanted first same-sex experience. While this was a single case in this study, it is striking that a story like his can be found within a sample of only thirteen. It is especially alarming that this story belonged to the youngest interviewee of the sample (age 16). Because of the interviewees’ explicit and logical difficulty talking about this experience, many questions remain. One of the most relevant questions within this current study would be which scripts were involved (or lacking) in this experience. However, two small parts in Shadi’s narrative, namely “I actually didn’t really know what it [anal sex] entailed” and “it happened because I was just curious”, hint at the crucial role played by the lack of relevant knowledge and skills.
Having certain knowledge and skills, but also attitudes (e.g., norms and values) was indeed considered important by the interviewees, in order to prepare for and ensure safe and pleasurable first sexual experiences. Knowing homosexuality exists, that sex between two women or men is possible, and what sexual things you can do were considered crucial. Being able to feel a sense of agency, and to negotiate your preferences and boundaries were also mentioned as important. The kind of attitude considered most important was that of self-acceptance. For the interviewees, their first same-sex experience was strongly intertwined with their process of same-sex attraction discovery, exploration, and acceptance, and often an important step in this process. For most, self-acceptance came after the experience. This was the case for both males and females, and hence seems to indicate a less straightforward
