“Yeah, but like what is she gonna
do?”: a male perspective on sexual
consent, transgression, and
victimhood within a heterosexual
context.
Isabel J.M. Sheridan | 10671951 MA Sociology | Cultural Sociology
University of Amsterdam Supervisor: dr. Paul Mepschen Second reader: dr. Margriet van Heesch
Word count: 20.089 August 15, 2019, Amsterdam
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to my thesis supervisor Paul Mepschen for his patience, critical comments and encouraging words. I would also like to thank my family and friends
Table of contents
Summary of the Research 2
Introduction 3
CH1: Extending Social Script Theory 6
CH2: The Traditional Heterosexual Sexual Script 11
CH3: Consent and Transgression 17
CH4: Methodology 23
CH5: Data Analysis 27
The Instigator-Gatekeeper binary 27
The Physical-Emotional binary 36
Consent & Transgression 44
Conclusion 56
Bibliography 59
Summary of the Research
Social structures surrounding sexual consent have been understudied, especially from a male perspective within a heterosexual context. This thesis investigates to what extent the traditional heterosexual sexual script informs the way young, Dutch, college-educated Men who have Sex with Women (MSW) perceive and construct sexual consent and sexual transgressive behavior. The traditional heterosexual sexual script reflects gendered and essentialist hegemonic notions on how MSW and Women who have Sex with Men (WSM) should behave in heterosexual encounters. MSW are described as strong, active, dominant sexual initiators, who are always in a state of sexual readiness and who primarily focus on physical gratification. WSM are imagined as passive, physically inferior gatekeepers who prioritize emotional
connection. Social script theory (Simon & Gagnon, 1973, 1986) forms the theoretical basis of the majority of research into sexual scripts. This thesis proposes the notion of cultural repertoire (Swidler, 1986, 2000) as a relevant addition to social script theory, as it provides a more fluid, contextual, and actor-centered perspective on how culture informs behavior, and accommodates both traditional and alternative scripts simultaneously. Using qualitative research methods that include interviews
with a sample of thirteen MSW and WSM, this thesis concludes that the traditional heterosexual sexual script influences MSW’s conceptualization of sexual consent and sexual transgressive behavior in various ways. In their experiences and expectations, the interviewees alternated between traditional heterosexual scripts and alternative scripts. In this way, Swidler’s theory of cultural repertoire, which allows for multiple contradicting scripts to be available to an individual at the same time, thus seems more able to accommodate present day sexual reality than Simon & Gagnon’s script theory. In line with the traditional heterosexual sexual script, this thesis finds that sexual consent tends to be seen as something not equally relevant to both partners in a heterosexual encounter but as primarily important for the female party. Sexual consent is conceptualized as one-directional and sexual transgression is primarily seen as physical behavior. As MSW are assumed to be physically
stronger than WSM, MSW are responsible for obtaining consent from their female partners. Furthermore, the hegemonic idea of masculinity that assumes men to be strong and invulnerable is incompatible with the idea of male victimhood. MSW are assumed to be able to defend themselves against female-perpetrated sexual assault. This thesis also concludes that the traditional notion regarding the
limitlessness of the male sexual appetite plays a role in female-perpetrated sexual transgressive behavior. Because the traditional heterosexual sexual script supposes that MSW always want to have sex, consent is infallibly assumed. Sexual
transgressive behavior, however, also occurs in non-physical forms. In keeping with previous research, this thesis demonstrates that men can indeed be the victim of female-perpetrated sexual transgressive behavior. Such a conclusion helps to ensure that the current conversation around sexual consent and transgression includes both MSW and WSM equally and does not reproduce oppressive gender roles.
Introduction
Contrary to research conducted on the topic of sexual assault and sexual
transgressive behavior, the way we perceive, construct and experience consent remains relatively understudied (Beres, 2007; Beres & Farvid, 2010). This is an interesting fact, seeing as sexual assault implies the absence of consent; therefore, one could argue that these concepts cannot be studied separately from each other.
In the aftermath of the #me-too movement, it is paramount that academic attention is directed not only to sexual transgressive behavior, but also to the very social and psychological structures that determine what is and what is not sexually
transgressive: sexual consent. Although she recognises that trying to come up with a workable definition of consent can be a slippery slope, and that it is seldom explicitly defined, Beres (2007) asserts that “there is general consensus that sexual consent represents some form of agreement to engage in sexual activity” (p. 97). The word agreement implies that there exists a mutual consensus between two (or more) parties. Within the context of heterosexual practices, sexual consent should then be mutually consensual, equally important to and directed at Men who have Sex with Women (MSW) and Women who have Sex with Men (WSM). But is sexual consent truly constructed and experienced as mutual?
The traditional heterosexual sexual script reflects mainstream hegemonic notions on how MSW and WSM should behave in heterosexual encounters. The dominant script “is highly gendered and prescribes specific, often opposite, positions for men and women” (Masters et al. 2012, p. 410). It describes MSW as strong, active,
dominant sexual initiators who are always in a state of sexual readiness and who are primarily focused on physical gratification (Beres, Herold & Maitland, 2004; Krahé, Bieneck & Scheinberger-Olwig, 2007; Beres & Farvid, 2010; Masters et al., 2012; Jozkowski, 2013; Sakaluk et al., 2014; Seabrook et al., 2016; Hermann et al., 2018; Murray, 2018). In contrast, it portrays WSM as passive, physically inferior
gatekeepers who are always in the pursuit of a monogamous relationship
(Wiederman, 2005; Krahe, Bieneck & Scheinberger-Olwig, 2007; Beres & Farvid, 2010; Eaton & Rose, 2011; Jozkowski, 2013; Fetterolf & Sanchez, 2015; Hermann et al., 2018). The traditional heterosexual sexual script provides an essentialist
perspective on heterosexual practices, which does not do justice to the sexual variety that tends to characterize the lived experience of MSW and WSM (Dworkin & O’Sullivan, 2005; Hill, 2006; Suvivuo, Tossavainen & Kontula, 2010; Vannier and O’Sullivan, 2011; Murray, 2018).
The traditional heterosexual sexual script perpetuates stereotypical gender roles, and this affects the way we understand sexual consent and sexual victimhood. This is problematic, because the dominant conceptualization of heterosexual masculinity
as physically superior, sexually dominant and hypersexual is much less compatible with the idea of victimhood than traditional notions of heterosexual femininity. ‘Real’ men should be able to physically defend themselves, ‘real’ men cannot be victimized by women, ‘real’ men should have an insatiable sexual appetite. Furthermore,
academic literature on sexual assault has predominantly focussed on female victims (Krahé, Waizenhöfer & Möller, 2003; Chapleau, Oswald & Russell, 2008; Javaid, 2015). This is justified due to the fact that women are more often sexually victimized by men than vice versa (Javaid, 2015; Levy & Adam, 2018). Research, however, indicates that MSW are also victims of female-perpetrated sexual transgressive behavior (Krahé, Waizenhöfer & Möller, 2003; Johnson, Struckman-Johnson & Anderson, 2003; Stermac, Del Bove & Addison, 2004; Fisher & Pina, 2013; Levy & Adam, 2018). It remains an understudied area within the discourse on sexual victimization that deserves more attention (Fisher & Pina, 2013; Hlavka, 2017).
In my thesis I explore how both parties involved in heterosexual practices play a part in developing and perpetuating certain narratives about sexual consent, but I will specifically focus on the male experience of sexual consent. The research question of my thesis is: “To what extent does the traditional heterosexual sexual script inform the way young, Dutch, college educated Men who have Sex with Women (MSW) perceive and construct sexual consent and sexual transgressive behavior?”. The “supposed ‘invulnerabilities’ of the masculine body” (Clowes, 2013, p. 17) inhibit us from recognizing the seriousness of male sexual victimization, and how traditional masculinity makes men vulnerable to harm. It is therefore important that we do not only become more aware of these gender dynamics, but that we actively work towards a more inclusive understanding of sexual consent that goes beyond the limiting notions of traditional masculinity.
I commence by exploring the framework that forms the theoretical basis of the traditional heterosexual script: social script theory (Simon & Gagnon, 1973,1986). After delivering my critique of Simon & Gagnon’s theory, I will propose to extend their concept by adding some components from Swidler’s (1986, 2000) notion of cultural repertoire. I will then move on to discuss the traditional heterosexual sexual script. What is the traditional heterosexual sexual script? What gendered binaries does it
perpetuate? And are there any alternative sexual scripts available? To conclude the theoretical section of my thesis, I will investigate sexual consent and sexual
transgressive behavior. How is sexual consent conceptualised in academic
literature? And how do we conceptualise sexual transgressive behavior? And what is the relationship between these conceptualizations and the traditional heterosexual script? Thereafter, I will explain my qualitative research process in the methods section, followed by a narrative analysis and discussion of the thirteen semi-structured, in-depth interviews I conducted with young, Dutch, college-educated MSW and WSM about their sex lives and more specifically about their experience of sexual consent and sexual transgressive behavior.
CH1: Extending Social Script Theory
Script theory is often used to investigate the relation between socio-cultural
narratives and sexual behavior (Beres, Herold & Maitland, 2004; Wiederman, 2005). This chapter will explain and critique script theory, as well as extending it by
exploring Swidler’s (1986, 2000) concept of cultural repertoire.
Social script theory
Script theory assumes that an individual’s behavior is primarily motivated by shared cultural ideas rather than biological imperatives (Simon & Gagnon, 1973,1986; Irvine, 2003; Beres, Herold & Maitland, 2004; Wiederman, 2005; Carpenter, 2010; Murray, 2018). This constructionist perspective relies on the idea that “[s]ocial scripts may be thought of as both social agents, prescribing what is considered normative within a culture, and as intrapsychic maps, providing directions for how to feel, think, and behave in a particular situation” (Wiederman, 2005, p. 496). Normative is the keyword here. When Gagnon and Simon (1973) talk about behaviour, they refer to it as conduct, which is “behavior that expresses a norm or evaluation” (p. 153).
Cultural scripts are commonly shared socio-cultural blueprints with clear ideas on what is considered to be appropriate behavior in situation X and/or in situation Y. Gagnon and Simon (1986) identify three layers of sexual scripts: cultural scenarios, interpersonal scripts, and intrapsychic scripts. For this paper I will focus only on the first two. Cultural scenarios relate to the external world; they form a commonly
collective patterns that specify appropriate sexual goals, objects and relationships. They are historically and culturally specific guidelines for how, when, where, why and with whom to be sexual” (Irvine, 2003, p. 489). All social roles will at least to some extent reflect dominant cultural scenarios, but cultural scenarios cannot completely predict actual behavior (Gagnon & Simon, 1973). Then there is the interpersonal script, which is our individual interpretation and enactment of a given cultural
scenario (Gagnon & Simon, 1973). The cultural ingredients are generally consistent but, based on our own experiences as individuals, the way one person enacts a script might slightly differ from that of another. When people bake a lemon pie, they may all buy the same ingredients, but the recipe might vary slightly from one baker to another. Eventually, however, one lemon pie will still be generally similar to the other.
In its application to (hetero)sexual practices, social script theory suggests that the way we conduct ourselves in sexual relations and with regards to our sexual partner(s) is based on the dominant cultural narratives about gender and sexual behavior we have internalized (Carpenter, 2010). As Krahé, Bieneck and
Scheinberger-Olwig (2007) explain it, “[s]exual scripts are embedded in cultural norms about sexuality and reflect consensually shared gender stereotypes and gender-typed behavioral expectations” (p. 316). Besides guiding behavior, cultural scripts also serve as a tool for interpreting sexual cues and contexts, and they aid individuals in anticipating and predicting the behaviour of others (Simon & Gagnon, 1973; Wiederman, 2005; Beres, Herold & Maitland, 2004; Irvine, 2003). Because these scripts are assumed to be widely shared, it makes the behavior of others to a certain extent predictable. In a manner of speaking, everybody knows ‘the rules of the game’: “[s]cript theory is based on the assumption that in order to participate in sexual events, the actors (participants) must have an understanding of which events are considered sexual and how to behave sexually” (Beres, Herold & Maitland, 2004. p. 475). Some have pointed out that script theory might not be suitable to explain and interpret all of humankind’s sexual experiences, as it puts an emphasis on larger cultural narratives (Carpenter, 2010; Sakaluk et al. 2014). It can, however, be
applied as a useful theoretical scheme to explore the role of gendered cultural beliefs in informing behaviour in sexual interactions (Simon & Gagnon, 1973).
research that explores sexual behavior and communication and cultural beliefs about gender and sexuality (Beres, Herold & Maitland, 2004; Wiederman, 2005).
Revising social script theory
In reality, the way people interact sexually or romantically might be less
straightforward than Simon and Gagnon’s theoretical framework would suggest. Some have pointed out “that sexual scripts are more than just explicit internalizations of differentiated gender norms and stereotypes” (Dworkin & O’Sullivan, 2005 as in Sakaluk et al., 2014, p. 518). The sexual behaviour or romantic feelings of Men who have Sex with Women (MSW) and Women who have Sex with Men (WSM) are not simply exact copies of dominant cultural scenarios. Over the course of their lives, these individuals will develop their own personal scripts. Personal scripts might partly rely on or stem from hegemonic cultural narratives, but ultimately they are also
influenced by an individual’s own personal context and sexual experiences (Carpenter, 2010; Sakaluk et al., 2014). Furthermore, Kraheé, Bieneck and
Scheinberger-Olwig (2007) suggest that “[k]nowing a socially shared script does not automatically mean endorsing and enacting it as part of one's own behavioral
repertoire” (p. 317). Knowledge of something does not necessarily have to (fully) translate into behaviour. Although people do not exist in societal vacuums and therefore will, to some extent, be influenced by hegemonic socio-cultural narratives, people might not be equally affected by these dominant cultural views. There is room for some nuance and/or fluidity here. Some might conform more to an hegemonic experience of heterosexual encounters than others. Similarly, there might be situations in which one conforms more to the script than in others. Lastly, it does take into account the possibility that people are not always consistent in the way they enact cultural scripts. One might act in a certain way when having sex with one person at one time and might behave differently when engaging in sexual practices with other people at other times.
Cultural repertoire
Swidler’s (1986, 2000) concept of cultural repertoire partly overlaps with script theory, as both theories are grounded in the idea that social behavior is influenced by cultural narratives. Cultural repertoire goes a step further and brings something different to the table, which, when investigating the link between sexual behavior and
culture, might form a useful addition to script theory. According to Swidler (1986), “[a] culture is not a unified system that pushes action in a consistent direction. Rather, it is more like a “tool kit” or repertoire from which actors select differing pieces for constructing lines of action” (p. 277). In other words, people are not passive recipients of cultural input, rather they are active agents: people actively and strategically choose a cultural strategy from a range of cultural scripts they have in their ‘cultural toolkit’ to navigate a certain social situation. She also points out that an individual always has access to a larger variety of cultural scripts that they draw upon at any given time (Swidler, 2000). Cultural scripts that might work in some situations, might not necessarily be suitable in others, and when a person
encounters a social situation that they cannot deal with using their “dominant cultural scheme” (Swidler, 2000, p. 31), there is a possibility to adopt a different cultural script that better fits the situation (Swidler 1986, 2000).
Contrary to script theory, Swidler’s concept of cultural repertoire allows for multiple, and sometimes conflicting, cultural scripts to be available to one and the same person, as she argues that “all real cultures contain diverse, often conflicting
symbols, rituals, stories, and guides to action” (Swidler, 1986, p. 277). A WSM who might draw upon a more traditional sexual script in one sexual encounter, might navigate another sexual situation using a different cultural strategy. Take, for
example, the young Finnish women whom Suvivuo, Tossavainen and Kontula (2010) interviewed. Some of them would in one case hope that a casual encounter would develop into ‘something more’ (traditional heterosexual sexual script), whilst in other cases they would engage in sexual activities for divergent reasons, such as the excitement of sexual pleasure (alternative sexual script). Swidler provides a nuanced, more fluid, and contextual understanding of how cultural scripts inform action. Although social script theory recognises the fact that there exists variation in the way people enact social scripts in the concept of the interpersonal script, it still heavily depends on the internalization of hegemonic cultural scenarios. The
interpersonal script is a mere interpretation of a dominant cultural scenario. When applying script theory, one runs the risk of getting lost in over-generalisations and binary thinking and thereby losing sight of the individual and contextual experience, enactment and implementation of social scripts. This is how stereotypes are
way they limit the individual expression and experience of sexual interactions, because it prescribes normative behavior. Also, social script theory portrays the individual as a passive consumer of culture, rather than an actual individual with agency. Swidler understands culture as strategical, which implies agency. People actively choose a cultural script that suits a specific situation. Following Swidler, I would suggest that the enactment of any given socio-cultural script is situational and contextual. Social script theory can be a useful tool when looking at sexual practices on a blueprint level. As I will argue in the following chapter, this blueprint level has relevance. We do, however, need to beware for making over-generalizing
statements and we must not overlook the individual experience in favor of a more general perspective. Following Swidler, I argue that alternative and dominant scripts are contextually drawn upon by the actor depending. Furthermore, I believe that alternative and dominant scripts are not oppositional, but complementary. Different situations trigger different responses: these scripts are not mutually exclusive, rather they can coexist in the repertoire of one single individual.
CH2: The Traditional Heterosexual Sexual Script
As becomes clear from the word ‘traditional’, the traditional heterosexual sexual script is greatly gendered and reflects mainstream ideas on how Men who have Sex with Women (MSW) and Women who have Sex with Men (WSM) should behave in heterosexual encounters. The cultural roles prescribed by this script are often
defined in terms of binaries; providing opposite roles for MSW and WSM (Masters et al., 2012). Where men, for example, are portrayed as ‘hard’, women are defined as ‘soft’. Where men are supposed to ‘desire’, women are supposed to ‘be desired’. Where men are assumed to focus more on the physical pleasure connected to intercourse, women are assumed to emphasize the importance of an emotional connection. The list of binary oppositions is long. Consequently, the traditional script portrays an essentializing, over-generalized, and oppressive picture of heterosexual sexual relationships, which perpetuates stereotypical ideas and myths about gender and (hetero)sexuality and. This chapter will provide an overview of the different, yet complementary scripts of heterosexual sexual practices within a Western (European) context. In contrast to the hegemony of the traditional scripts, research indicates that more and more MSW and WSM are moving away from the traditional script in favor
of alternative cultural scripts (Dworkin & O’Sullivan, 2005; Hill, 2006; Suvivuo, Tossavainen & Kontula, 2010; Masters et al., 2012; Murray, 2018). After exploring the traditional heterosexual script, I will therefore investigate some of the research on alternative sexual scripts.
The traditional heterosexual sexual script
The active initiator vs. the passive gatekeeper binary
Within traditional heterosexual scripts, men are usually described as the initiators of sexual activity (Beres, Herold & Maitland, 2004; Krahé, Bieneck & Scheinberger-Olwig, 2007; Beres, 2010; Eaton & Rose, 2011; Masters et al., 2012; Jozkowski, 2013; Sakaluk et al., 2014; Seabrook et al., 2016; Hermann et al., 2018). They are expected to always be interested and aroused for sex (Sakaluk et al., 2014), to actively pursue options for sexual engagement and “to push to the next level of physical intimacy” (Murray, 2018, p. 130; also see Dworkin & O’Sullivan, 2005; Seabrook et al. 2016). Furthermore, it is assumed that men actively desire instead of being the passive object of desire (Murray, 2018). They objectify their sexual partner instead of being objectified. When the actual intercourse commences, MSW are expected to assert their sexual dominance and take the lead in how the interaction develops: determining the pace, the sex positions, the duration etc. (Wiederman, 2005). Lastly, the script dictates that having a high number of sexual partners is not just something to strive for and to be proud of, but as something inherent to male sexuality (Dworkin & O’Sullivan, 2005; Wiederman, 2005; Bordini & Sperb, 2013; Seabrook et al, 2016). If MSW fail to demonstrate these ‘inherently masculine’ traits, they run the risk of being perceived as not manly enough (Eaton & Rose, 2011; Bordini & Sperb, 2013)
Contrary to the man’s role of sexual initiator, WSM are expected to take on the role of the sexual gatekeeper (Wiederman, 2005; Krahe, Bieneck & Scheinberger-Olwig, 2007; Beres, 2010; Eaton & Rose, 2011; Jozkowski, 2013; Fetterolf & Sanchez, 2015; Hermann et al., 2018). WSM are expected to postpone or ward off sexual activity because of tarnishing her social reputation, the risk of getting hurt
emotionally, and the physical risk of getting pregnant (Wiederman, 2005). Where MSW are encouraged to seek out multiple sexual partners, WSM should ‘remain pure’ and have only a limited amount of sexual partners in order to be perceived as
romantically and sexually desirable (Farvid, Brown & Rowney, 2017; Jozkowski, Marcantonio & Hunt, 2017). Not doing so is perceived as “either willful deviation from the traditional female sexual script or lack of success following that script”
(Wiederman, 2005, p. 498). Whether it is voluntary or involuntary, the result is the same, as diverting from the dominant heterosexual script is traditionally equated with being less or even un-feminine.
The sexual double standard
These contrasting scripts for WSM and MSW create a binary between the sexual agent (MSW) and the sexual object (WSM). It perpetuates a sexual double standard, “which refers to the idea that men always think about sex and that having sex is a defining aspect of masculinity, whereas women are ‘‘gatekeepers’’ and keep their sexuality and number of sexual encounters in check” (Seabrook et al., 2016, p. 339; also see Farvid, Brown & Rowney, 2017; Jozkowski, Marcantonio & Hunt, 2017). As the initiator-gatekeeper binary is overtly present in dominant heterosexual sexual scripts, these traditional scripts play a significant role in keeping concepts such as the sexual double standard alive. “The sexual double standard invokes traditional discourses of heterosexuality, such as the Madonna/whore binary (virtuous versus promiscuous), to negatively construct women’s desire for, and participation in what is socially, culturally or morally defined as ‘too much’ sex” (Farvid, Brown & Rowney, 2017, p. 545). Women are either chaste and good, or immoral sluts. Male sexual desire, in contrast to that of their female counterparts, is allowed to be limitless without becoming subject to stigmatization (Seabrook et al., 2016; Farvid, Brown & Rowney, 2017). There is rarely such a thing as ‘too much’ sex for men. A man might be negatively referred to as a player, or a man-whore or a man-slut, but being
labelled as such does not contain the same level of stigmatization as it does for women (Farvid, Brown & Rowney, 2017). Not by coincidence, derogatory terms such as ‘man-whore’ or a ‘man-slut’ are terms that refer to the ‘feminine’, based on
derogatory terms commonly used for women (e.g. slut and whore).
Physical satisfaction vs. emotional connection
The heterosexual sexual script portrays men as focusing on and prioritizing physical gratification and sexual performance over the emotional side of sexual relations (Allen, 2003; Wiederman, 2005; Masters et al., 2012; Seabrook et al., 2016).
Counter to this, women are expected to emphasize the emotional side of intercourse over the physical component and not to engage in sexual relationships unless there is an emotional connection between them and their partner (Allen, 2003; Dworkin & O’Sullivan, 2005; Masters et al., 2012; Sakaluk et al., 2014). Connected to this physical-emotional binary in heterosexual relationships is the idea that “[w]hile men avoid commitment, and tease other men in monogamous relationships, women prioritize romantic relationships and make sacrifices for their partners in order to maintain these relationships” (Seabrook et al., 2016, p. 339). In this dichotomy, WSM are portrayed as prioritizing and always on the hunt for romantic relationships,
whereas men are described as actively avoiding and even ridiculing the idea of monogamous commitment.
Another way MSW’s emphasis on the physical side of sex becomes apparent is the central role of the orgasm when it comes to enjoying sex. Not only is it important for their own enjoyment of sexual encounters, Muehlenhard and Shippee (2010) point out that the young American men they interviewed expressed that they feel a certain responsibility for their female partner’s orgasm. Making their female partners climax is perceived as an indicator of skill, sexual aptness and experience and not being able to do so makes a man a bad or unskilled lover (Sakaluk et al., 2014). This is important because, as Wiederman (2005) suggests, “[t]he man’s perception of himself as a desirable sexual partner is traditionally tied to his skill as a lover” (p. 499). Being skilled here does not just refer to being able to ‘please’ his partner, but to conform to certain expectations such as being able to maintain an erect penis and to postpone one’s own orgasm to prologue their female partner’s pleasure (Wiederman, 2005).
Alternative scripts
Although there is a vast amount of literature that provides evidence for the persistence and relevance of the dominant heterosexual script, there is an ever growing body of literature and research that describes various context scripts that divert from traditional scripts for heterosexual sexual encounters (Dworkin & O’Sullivan, 2005; Hill, 2006; Suvivuo, Tossavainen & Kontula, 2010; Vannier and O’Sullivan, 2011; Murray, 2018). As Sakaluk et al. (2014) asserts, “[y]oung women and men are at a crossroads between pervasive traditional gender roles and
emerging egalitarian scripts” (p. 518; also see Suvivuo, Tossavainen & Kontula, 2010). The suggestion that there is a shift happening regarding heterosexual behavior and attitudes with the emergence of alternative scripts has not gone unnoticed. See below a few examples of alternative sexual scripts.
Alternative patterns of initiation
Contrary to traditional patterns of sexual initiation, where it is assumed that the man initiates and desires to do so, Dworkin and O’Sullivan (2005) found that, although the young MSW they spoke to still did most of the ‘initiation work’, most of them actually expressed their desire for a more equal pattern of initiation or even more female-initiated sexual encounters. The reasons they gave included “(a) preferring to be more of an object of desire to female partners, (b) wanting to share the work of initiation since it was considered a form of labor and, (c) desiring sexual
egalitarianism in the relationship” (Dworkin & O’Sullivan, 2005, p. 153). Especially the wish to feel like an object of desire (reverting the gaze) is striking, as it is in direct contrast with the traditional heterosexual in script in which the man is assumed to desire and not be desired. When studying patterns of initiation within the context of a relationship, Vannier and O’Sullivan (2011) found that, although men tended to initiate slightly more often than their female partners, female initiation also occurred quite often. Furthermore, research conducted by Seal et al. (2008) demonstrates that how well sexual partners know each other may also affect initiation behavior. They found that first time sexual encounters between a MSW and a WSM would generally follow a more traditional, male-based pattern of initiation, whereas following
encounters with the same partner became more egalitarian.
Girls also want to have fun / Boys also have feelings
Furthermore, Suvivuo, Tossavainen and Kontula (2010), for example, discovered that, in contrast to the hegemonic script that states that young Finnish WSM
generally enter into sexual encounters in search for an emotional connection and/or a relationship, the young Finnish women they interviewed tended to adopt a variety of contesting scripts. They found that, although the traditional script was still very influential, some girls indicated they engaged in sexual practices because of different reasons, such as bodily pleasure or the excitement of a new experience. In line with Suvivuo, Tossavainen and Kontula, Maxwell’s (2007) research also indicates that
women will often engage in sex for the same alternative reasons. Contrary to the traditional image of heterosexual masculinity, Allen (2003) described how young MSW did not only engage in sex for physical pleasure, but that an emotional connection and aspects such as love and commitment were equally important to both MSW and WSM she interviewed.
Some concluding remarks
The traditional sexual script ignores the possibility of sexual diversity within heterosex in favor of traditional ideas of masculine and feminine heterosexuality. This perpetuates and keeps intact myths and stereotypes about the sexual behavior of MSW and WSM, “with women lacking erotic desire, voyeuristic tendencies and corporeal pleasure, while men are disconnected from their emotional and mental needs and desires” (Allen, 2003, p. 217). This is dangerous, because the traditional script is limiting for both men and women. The dominant script does not only put pressure on MSW and WSM to conform to normative gender roles, it also informs MSW and WSM on what to expect from their sexual partner. These expectations may in turn put normative pressures on one’s partner. As research on alternative scripts indicates, people adopt various cultural strategies that divert from normative heterosexual scripts. This is not to say that the traditional heterosexual script has become irrelevant, rather this indicates that alternative and traditional scripts coexist. As Masters et al. (2012) point out, “[a]ctual characteristics and behaviors of men and women—in both sexual and other realms—run along a continuum such that there can be as much within-group as between group differences” (Masters et al., 2012, p. 410). The existence of alternative scripts demonstrates that present Western
heterosexual practices are diverse and go beyond the dominant script. Recognizing the relevance of both traditional and alternative scripts is an important step towards a more nuanced conceptualization of heterosexual encounters.
How does this relate back to the theoretical framework discussed in chapter I? Whereas social script theory favors the traditional script, as it focuses on the influence of hegemonic cultural narratives, acknowledging the presence and
relevance of multiple and often conflicting cultural scripts is an argument in favor of Swidler’s theory of cultural repertoire. As, for example, the research of Suvivuo, Tossavainen and Kontula (2010) reveals, individuals have knowledge of different
cultural scripts. Which script(s) they will draw upon in a particular situation is context-dependent. In short, to do justice to the sexual and cultural diversity that these different scripts call for, a more situational, contextual and actor-centered
perspective on how culture informs behavior is necessary, instead of perpetuating stereotypical ideas on the sexual relations between MSW and WSM.
CH3: Consent and Transgression Sexual consent
The aim of the following part is not to work towards one definition of sexual consent and sexual transgressive behavior, but rather to highlight why it is a difficult concept to define, and how the way we perceive and construct consent is informed by
normative conceptualizations of gender.
What is consent?
In the literature on sexual consent and sexual transgressive behavior, sexual consent as a term is seldom explicitly defined (Beres, 2007; Beres & Farvid, 2010). Furthermore, although there has been a lot of research done on the topic of sexual transgression, rape and assault, sexual consent has remained relatively
understudied (Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013). Especially empirical research on the individual experience, perception and construction of sexual consent is very limited (Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013). This is remarkable as the two concepts are closely connected to each other. Sexual transgressive behavior implies the absence of consent, consequently you cannot study one without touching upon the other
(Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013). As Beres (2007) points out, although there are many definitions of sexual consent used throughout the literature, some of them more explicitly delineated than others, “there is general consensus that sexual consent represents some form of agreement to engage in sexual activity” (p. 97). Besides the idea of sexual consent as form of agreement, it is also important that the one who expresses consent can do so freely: there must be a choice (Humphreys & Herold, 2007). In other words, if one is forced into an agreement, in one way or another, we cannot speak of consent.
If there are many different definitions of consent, how then do we recognise and express sexual consent? The ways in which consent is expressed seems to be as multidious as the different definitions of consent. Sexual consent appears in many forms and its expression or interpretation seems subjective, situational and relies on interpretation by the other. An individual can explicitly ask for and give consent verbally (e.g. asking for consent, saying ‘yes’ etc.) as well as non-verbally (e.g. physical cues like seeing how the other responds to touch, kissing, body language or the absence of a ‘no’/resistance). Research on the ways consent is most often
expressed (either verbally or non verbally) is divided (Jozkowski, 2011). Although Jozkowski (2011) argues that amongst college students, nonverbal consent is more commonly practiced than verbal consent, she adds that gender is often a deciding factor in the way consent is communicated, with women tending to express consent verbally and with men making more use of non-verbal signs. This general preference for nonverbal expressions and interpretations of consent leaves room for
miscommunication (Jozkowski, & Peterson, 2013). Beres, Herold & Maitland (2004) also found that nonverbal cues were more often employed than verbal ones. They also concluded that the amount of sexual experience and how well they knew their partner did not affect the way their respondents gave consent and how much consent they gave (Beres, Herold & Maitland, 2004).
A gendered script of consent behavior
Communicating consent is not just a game of asking and giving. As Beres (2007) points out, “[c]onsent becomes something broader than just a ‘yes’ to sex with a specific person, in a particular place, at a particular time. It becomes a negotiation of social expectations, a way of expressing a social identity, or of fitting in to a certain social world” (p. 99). Research suggests that there is a gendered difference in the way MSW and WSM communicate sexual consent within the context of heterosex influenced by traditional cultural narratives surrounding heterosexual relations with men usually asking or initiating and the female partner assuming the role of
gatekeeper/asked. (Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013; Jozkowski, Marcantonio & Hunt, 2017). Jozkowski, Marcantonio & Hunt (2017) stated that “traditional gender norms, which constrain women’s sexuality and support men as sexual initiators, still exist and seem to influence students’ perceptions of consent and consent communication” (p. 241). The influence of the traditional heterosexual sexual script on the way
consent is communicated is not only limiting for women, but also for men. As Jozkowski and Peterson (2013) indicate: “[m]en may be in situations in which they do not want to engage in sexual intercourse for various reasons but may believe that initiating activity is expected of them...Furthermore, as the initiators, men are viewed as responsible for reading women’s cues of consent or nonconsent” (p. 521).
Looking at consent through the lens of the traditional script, there is a double danger which ultimately leads to the conceptualization of consent as only important for men in the context of being responsible for interpreting consent cues of their female partner. Lastly, Beres (2007) makes a relevant point in saying that a gendered version of consent that is based on a traditional heterosexual script that assumes that men are ‘always up for it’/always actively pursue sex is a definition of consent that “assumes that men’s consent is never contested and ever-present” (p. 96). When a man’s consent is always assumed and never contested, consent becomes one-directional instead of mutual: in other words, consent becomes something that is primarily relevant to and directed at the female partner.
Sexual Transgressive Behavior
Javaid (2015) defines sexual transgressive behavior as “psychological, physical, and emotional violation in the form of a sexual act, which is inflicted without consent” (p. 272). Sexual transgressive behavior comes in many forms, shapes and sizes, as it includes any form of unwanted, non-consensual behavior, ranging from unwanted touching, to verbal pressure, to emotional blackmail, to using physical force or threats (Krahé, Waizenhöfer & Möller, 2003). As already pointed out, consent and transgression are inseparably connected to each other, as “...the absence of sexual consent is most often the defining characteristic of sexual violence (sex without consent)” (Beres, 2007, p. 93). It is therefore important to gain an understanding of both sexual consent and sexual transgressive behavior when looking into either.
Gendered perceptions of victimhood
Just as researchers have pointed out that the traditional heterosexual script affects how we communicate and perceive consent, it also influences the way society perceives sexual violence and transgressive behavior and victimhood. As Beres (2007) asserts: “[t]he gendered assumption of consent is reflective of the gendered nature of sexual violence – many more women suffer violence at the hands of their
male partners than vice versa” (p. 96). With there being more cases in which women are assaulted by men (Javaid, 2015; Levy & Adam, 2018), it is not surprising that the vast majority of the research on the topic of sexual transgressive behavior has
focussed on female victims (Krahé, Waizenhöfer & Möller, 2003; Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson & Anderson, 2003; Chapleau, Oswald & Russell, 2008; Javaid, 2015). Although Javaid (2015) acknowledges that MSW are more likely to commit sexual transgressive behavior than women, she adds that “writers are not encapsulating the full range of sexual violence by conceptualising men as respectively offenders and women as victims” (p. 272). Contrary to research that focuses on male perpetrators and female victims, research on female-perpetrated sexual transgressive behavior is in short supply (Weiss, 2010), as well as literature on men’s experiences of sexual victimization, especially female-perpetrated sexual assault (Stermac, Del Bove & Addison, 2004; Fisher & Pina, 2013; Hlavka, 2017).
To be male = agressor ≠ victim
Trying to add up masculinity and the notion of victimhood proves to be a difficult equation. Following hegemonic conceptualizations of heterosexual relations, men are described as active sexual initiators and women as passive gatekeepers, which, when applied to the context of sexual transgressive behavior, results in the
perception of men as aggressors and women as victims (Weiss, 2010; Reling, et al. 2018). There are also men who are the victim of sexual transgressive behavior, but pervasive traditional narratives in society regarding masculinity make it less
acceptable to be a male victim; the traditional heterosexual script sketches an image of masculinity that is incompatible with victimhood (Stermac, Del Bove, & Addison, 2004; Chapleau, Oswald & Russell, 2008; Javaid, 2015; Hvlaka, 2017; Reling, et al. 2018). As Javaid (2015) argues, “the cause of the stereotypes and male rape myths is the gender role socialisation, and, as a result, the social construction of
masculinity that socialises men into becoming sexually dominant, strong, violent, and invulnerable” (p. 273). To be a ‘real’ man is to be unrapable. For men, recognizing themselves as a victim therefore goes against traditional notions of masculinity. Consequently, MSW might not perceive themselves as victims of sexual
transgressive behavior even when, if you look at the definition of sexual transgressive behavior, they would be.
Additionally, myths surrounding male sexuality, which too are products of the traditional heterosexual script, also make it difficult to perceive MSW as victims of sexual transgressive behavior. It is assumed that ‘real’ men are always in a state of readiness when it comes to sex (Sakaluk et al., 2014; Javaid, 2015; Levy & Adam, 2018). As a consequence, consent is always assumed and the idea of transgression becomes irrelevant. Men’s supposed boundless sexual appetite translates into the assumption that men’s bodies themselves are boundless, and when someone has no boundaries, another cannot transgress them. As described in chapter II, a high sex drive is an inherent part of hegemonic understandings of heterosexual
masculinity: “men who admit that they do not want sex or, worse, were forced to have sex violate codes of male (hetero)sexuality” (Javaid, 2015, p. 277). So how can you be a victim of sexual transgressive behavior if you are supposed to ‘always be up for it’? Due to myths surrounding male sexuality, WSM might commit sexual transgressive behavior without intending to do so or realizing it. As a consequence of the pressure to conform to traditional notions of masculinity, MSW might just ‘go along with it’, so as not to diverge or to disappoint.
Beyond physical sexual transgressive behavior
Another contributing factor to the gendered discourse surrounding sexual
transgressive behavior is the fact that sexual assault is often solely conceptualized in terms of physical transgression (Krahé, Waizenhöfer & Möller, 2003; Fisher & Pina, 2013). Following this conceptualization, “females are the only victims because they are weak and men cannot be victims because they are physically strong enough to defend themselves from such an attack” (Fisher & Pina, 2013, p. 58). There are, however, situations imaginable in which this statement does not hold. Furthermore, it tends to be overlooked that sexual transgressive behavior also appears in
non-physical forms, such as “verbal aggression, indirect aggression (e.g., spreading rumors), or relational aggression (e.g., exclusion)” (Krahé, Waizenhöfer & Möller, 2003, p. 219). Research indicates that girls and women employ non-physical forms of sexual transgressive behavior way more often than physical forms of aggression, such as, verbal pressure or taking advantage of a man in an incapacitated state (Krahé, Waizenhöfer & Möller, 2003; Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson & Anderson, 2003; Fisher & Pina, 2013). Only recognizing physical sexual
transgressive behavior as transgressive behavior is problematic, as it may lead to men not recognizing themselves as victims when they are subject to non-physical forms of sexual transgressive behavior or men not being taken seriously when the report being sexually abused by women.
In short
Traditional conceptualizations of gender and normative ideas about how MSW and WSM should behave in heterosexual encounters, affects the way we conceptualise and practice sexual consent and the way we think about sexual transgressive behavior. The idea of men as sexual victims and women as sexual aggressors is incompatible with the traditional gender roles the traditional heterosexual sexual script prescribes. ‘Real’ men are predators and not prey, ‘real’ men are up for having sex, and ‘real’ men are invulnerable. These normative notions of masculinity
combined with the emphasis on physical sexual transgressive behavior make it immensely difficult to perceive men as victims of female-perpetrated sexual assault. This leads to the perpetual underestimation of the pervasiveness of male sexual victimization by women (Levy & Adam, 2018). As Weiss (2010) asserts, “theoretical linkages between sexual aggression and masculinity...are so well established in the ways in which rape and sexual assault have been conceptualized over the years that to envision men as victims (or women as aggressors) requires a conscious
bracketing of preconceived notions about both sexual violence and gender” (p. 276).
The psychological and physiological effects of being the victim of sexual
transgressive behavior is equally damaging to men as it is to women (Stermac, Del Bove & Addison, 2004). It is therefore important that we not only become more aware of these gendered dynamics, but that we actively work towards a more inclusive understanding of consent and transgressive behavior.
CH4: Methodology Methodology
Interviews
I have conducted a total of thirteen semi-structured interviews with both men who have sex with women (MSW) and with women who have sex with men (WSM) between the ages of 22 and 27 (M=23,85). The interviews were conducted in Dutch,
as this my interviewees’ first language. The interviews roughly lasted between 40 and 90 minutes. I let my interviewees choose the interview environment. They were usually conducted in a private setting; at a quiet cafe, on campus or at the
respondent’s home.
In contrast to quantitative research on this topic, my qualitative project focused on exploring the nuances surrounding the way we conceptualize sexual consent. Doing a narrative analysis has allowed me to analyze the language my interviewees
adopted and to clearly identify the contradicting cultural scripts they adopted. This allowed me to gain a deeper, richer understanding of the way sexual consent is viewed, constructed and experienced. Analyzing narratives is a useful strategy when studying the link between culture and behavior, as it allows the interviewee to give an interpretation of past events through their own cultural lense, rather than a dry reproduction (Riessman, 1993). Ultimately it is that cultural lense that I, as a researcher, am interested in. I recorded the interviews and during the interviews I would take notes. After I had conducted all my interviews, I transcribed them and divided the transcriptions into different themes: the initiator-gatekeeper binary, the emotional-physical binary and sexual consent and sexual transgressive behavior. I analyzed each theme separately, comparing my interviewees to each other and to previous research on that topic.
I opted for one-on-one interviews over a focus group method, because the topics I wanted to discuss are generally considered to be very private. It is important to keep in mind that not everybody might be that comfortable talking about sexual relations in a detailed way with a stranger. In order to get the most honest and sincere
responses, I had to create an environment of trust, which, in my opinion is more easily achieved in an intimate setting.
Sample
I have chosen to interview both MSW and WSM, as both parties play a significant role in defining gender roles and what sexual consent means with regards to heterosexual sexual encounters. As my thesis primarily focuses on the male
experience of consent and transgression, I made the choice to interview more MSW (70%) than WSM (30%). This allowed me to gather a variety of male perspectives.
All my interviewees are currently still in college. I chose to interview college students for several reasons. Firstly, most of the literature that investigates the traditional heterosexual sexual script which my thesis builds on focusses on college students (Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013). This is closely connected to the second reason for choosing this age category, namely that emerging adulthood is a crucial time for experimenting with and forming attitudes regarding sex and love (Arnett, 2000). Emerging adulthood is an interesting time of sexual exploration in which social scripts are acquired, learned, and unlearned (Simon & Gagnon, 1986). For a lot of young adults, sex and love are important topics in their lives, which might lead them to be more open to talk about them. Being one of their peers puts me in a unique position, as it is easy for me to relate to my interviewees. This aided me in creating an atmosphere of trust, which I believe to be crucial when asking people to share very private, intimate information with you. Lastly, I chose college students for the very practical reason of access. As I am in a student environment myself, it was easy to gather a balanced group of interviewees to interview through my own network, using a snowball method.
Overview of the interviewees
Men who have Sex with Women (MSW) Anton, male, 25, heterosexual, single Tim, male, 27, heterosexual, single Rex, male, 22, heterosexual, single Elton, male, 24, heteroflexible, single
Dennis, male, 25, heterosexual, relationship Max, male, 24, heterosexual, single
Johnny, male, 25, heterosexual, open relationship Alex, male, 23, heterosexual, relationship
Johannes, male, 23, heterosexual, single
Women who have Sex with Men (WSM)
Rose, female, 24, pansexual, open relationship Luna, female, 22, bisexual, relationship
Alice, female, 22, heteroflexible, single Age (M=23,85) 22 - 3 23 - 2 24 - 4 25 - 3 26 - 0 27 - 1 Sexual preference Heterosexual - 9 (69,2%) Heteroflexible - 2 (15,4%) Bisexual - 1 (7,7 %) Pansexual - 1 (7,7 %) Relationship status Single - 8 (61,5 %) In a relationship - 3 (23,1%) In an open relationship - 2 (15,4%)
Number of sexual partners 5< - 2 (Dennis + Johannes) 6-10< - 1 (Rex)
11-15 - 4 (Anton + Alice + Johnny + Jane) 16-20 - 2 (Max + Alex) 21-25 - 1 (Luna) 26-30 - 0 31-35 - 1 (Rose) >36 - 2 (Elton + Tim) Political preference Liberal - 11 (84,6%) Conservative - 2 (15,4%)
Level of education HBO (30,8%) year 1 - 0 year 2 - 1 year 3 - 0 year 4 - 3 University (69,2%) Bachelor year 1 - 0 year 2 - 0 year 3 - 5 Master - 4 Group Diversity
All of my interviewees are Dutch, CISgendered, politically liberal, non-religious, white, and most of them are in the last phase of their studies. Ideally, I would have liked to have interviewed a more racially and ethnically diverse group of people, but due to time constraints and limits regarding the length of my thesis, I have refrained from doing so. This might, however, be an interesting factor to take into account for future research on this topic. It is important to keep in mind however, with regards to the reliability and the accuracy of this study, that the conclusions drawn from my analysis is not representative for society at large.
Most of my male interviewees identified as heterosexual, whereas only one of my female interviewees identified as heterosexual. Due to my sample size, this could be sheer coincidence. As research points out, it could also have to do with the fact that WSM tend to be less prone to report being solely attracted to the opposite sex, whilst for MSW the opposite is true (Bailey et al., 2016). A possible reason for this could be that, from a traditional heterosexual script perspective, men are discouraged to portray sexual fluidity, as homosexuality is often perceived as a challenge to traditional masculinity, as heterosexuality is a large component of traditional masculinity (Hill, 2006).
CH5: Data Analysis
The Instigator-Gatekeeper binary Patterns of initiation
Male based patterns of initiation
When asked whether they would usually take on a more active role in initiating sex than their female counterparts, some male interviewees like Anton, Max, and Rex said yes without much hesitation. When I asked why they would usually be the first to initiate, they all expressed that they felt that there exists a general societal expectation that men should not just initiate sex, but take the lead in most activities or situations. Anton (male, 25, heterosexual, single), for example, said the following:
I: Do you have the feeling that that [you initiating sex] is expected of you? A: Hm, hm.
I: Why?
A: Hmpf.. What do you mean why? I think that is a very obvious question, right? In a lot of cases it is expected of me that I take initiative.
I: Why do you have that feeling? Why do you think that is?
A: Well, girls just expect something of me. That I take the lead, for example, in asking somebody out, choosing where we go, where we meet, also when we kiss for the first time and then also when we go further [when we engage in different sexual practices] or also in small things… Calling the waiter for example. Or maybe just in general. Maybe I just interact with more stereotypical girls or something? I do not know.
Anton indicates that he feels a certain pressure to adhere to certain norms for heterosexual men. Interestingly, he also reflects upon the notion that he
experiencing this pressure might also be the product of him interacting with more ‘stereotypical girls’. If these girls adhere more to a traditional script of heterosexual encounters, it would not be unlikely that Anton feels more pressure to conform to a traditional masculine role in these interactions. In line with this, Max (male, 24, heterosexual, single) said: “...there is an idea that men should always approach the
woman also when you want to go out for a drink with somebody or ask someone out. I think this maybe also continues in the bedroom that the man then also initiates or something ... I am almost always on top. This does say something: ‘the man is on top, so he initiates’.” He also adds: “This is usually so the first times you have sex. The more you get used to each other, the more often it is also the other way round. But usually the first times it is like that [that the man takes charge]...”. In accordance with the traditional hetereosexual script both Max and Anton strongly express that they feel a general expectation that they should take on the role of initiator in most situations due to their gender. But, although Max relies on a more stereotypical division of sexual labor when he is not yet familiar with a sexual partner, he also points out that he is open to alternative working models.
Contrary patterns of initiation
In contrast with traditional views on ‘who starts what’, Tim (male, 27, heterosexual, single), for example, indicated that he does not necessarily have the feeling he has to start sex, that he is also not usually the person who starts kissing, and that he sometimes likes to wait to see if he and his partner really like each other before initiating anything. Furthermore, some men I interviewed expressed that they did not always feel comfortable taking on the role of initiator. Johannes, Alex and Anton all expressed discomfort with having to be the initiator, usually tied to insecurities in relation to the possibility of being rejected or the fear of forcing themselves upon someone. Johannes (male, 23, heterosexual, single), for example, indicated that taking initiative does not come naturally to him, that he is usually a bit hesitant when it comes to taking the next step. Alex and Anton linked their uneasiness with being the instigator. Alex (male, 23, heterosexual, relationship): “I often feel uncomfortable if I have to do it [initiate sex]. Somebody has to be first, but there is always this question in your head like ‘does she not do it [initiate sex] because she does not want to? And if you do it, it feels like you are forcing it or something. Maybe it is also a little bit the fear of rejection or something. That you think like ‘maybe there is a reason why we are not doing it [having sex] yet’? And if you have to do it [initiate sex], it might not be nice”. Taking on the active, initiating role can be a vulnerable position, as it carries with it the possibility of misinterpreting signals and ultimately the possibility of rejection. Whereas Alex has his doubts about the initiating role and
prefers a more egalitarian pattern of initiation, Anton (male, 25, heterosexual, single) described something else:
I: Do you feel comfortable in this role [the role of initiator]? A: Hm… No, not really.
I: Why not?
A: Because you have to be really sure of yourself... You know what it is? I would like to feel comfortable in it [the role of initiator]. I also feel bigger if I can do that, and I like that, but simultaneously I also miss that bit of confidence that you need for that.
Anton indicates that he really wants to initiate, but that insecurities sometimes hold him back. He says that being able to take that initiator role upon him, makes him feel ‘bigger’, which can be interpreted here as ‘more masculine’. Alex and Anton are similar and different. Their anxieties share similarities, but by favoring a more egalitarian pattern of initiating Alex diverts from the traditional heterosexual script, whereas Anton conforms to the traditional script by wanting to adhere to a more traditional notion of masculinity.
Egalitarian patterns of initiation
Elton (male, 24, heteroflexible, single) indicated that it really differed from situation to situation whether he or one of his female partners would initiate sex. He expressed that he did not have a specific preference for a male- or a female-based pattern of initiation. Dennis (male, 25, heterosexual, relationship) also described an egalitarian pattern of initiation in his relationship with his girlfriend of two years: “I could not say who initiates [sex] more often. I think that we are very well balanced. There are moments that she will initiate [sex] and I notice that those are usually the moments that I am not really up for it. But it happens the other way around just as often”. Dennis is very content with this egalitarian pattern of initiation. Max and Alex also indicated a preference for a balanced division of the initiation labor. Although Max (male, 24, heterosexual, single) indicated that he would usually take on a more active role in initiating sex, and sometimes experiences pressure from the idea that men should be more initiating in general, his preference goes out to a more balanced or egalitarian pattern of initiation. He describes how he likes to be the initiator of a sexual activity, but that he also really likes it when one of his female sexual partners
takes the lead. For him it depends on the situation. Max: “I really like it when it [having sex] kind of becomes like a game, in which you can challenge each other. That is what I really like”. Alex (male, 23, heterosexual, relationship) also expressed a preference for a more egalitarian pattern of initiation and highlights the
situationality of initiation patterns: “I have had girls who would really take the lead. I have also been in situations in which we would be making out for a long time and that I would be like ‘then I will do it’ [initiate sex] and I would notice that she liked that, like ‘ah, he finally makes a move’…” Alex describes sex as an interactional social transaction. ‘Who begins’ is not necessarily predetermined, but negotiated. How a sexual interaction develops is a reaction to the other or an interaction between two people.
The female lead
Contrary to the traditional heterosexual script, a lot of the women I spoke, like Rose, Luna, and Alice, told me they would often initiate sex themselves and they actively expressed a preference for a more female based pattern of initiation. Luna (female, 22, bisexual, relationship), for example, described her preference for the initiator role as “just owning your own sexuality, instead of just being a player in a script”. This fits in with the idea of the active-passive binary that underlies the initiator-gatekeeper binary: initiating sex or ‘owning your sexuality’, becomes synonymous with sexual agency. Rose (female, 24, pansexual, open relationship) described how whether she would be more prone to initiate or not also really depended on how well she knows her sexual partner: “...If it is not with the person I am in a relationship with, but with other people, I can be quite shy and I will just wait and see…”. Although she often initiates sex in her relationship, with people she does not know, Rose will be more likely to adopt a more traditional script when engaging in heterosexual practices.
Sexual dominance Male-dom
The subject of being more submissive or more dominant is closely linked to and naturally flows from the discussion surrounding sexual initiation behaviour. Following a traditional heterosexual sexual script, some men like Rex and Anton indicated that they felt that they were more dominant, but similarly to what they said surrounding the topic of commencing sex, they did not necessarily want to be dominant (Rex) or
they did not feel completely comfortable in this role (Anton). When I interviewed Rex (male, 22, heterosexual, single) he told me that most of the time he would be the one to initiate sex and that this active role also extended into the actual act, especially so when engaging in casual sex with girls he did not know very well:
I: What does it mean to be dominant in bed?
R: You on top, you decide the position… ehm, you decide the tempo. I: Do you feel like that is you?
R: Yeah… I think so. At least when I am with a girl that does not take any initiative… That is also why I like it when girls are confident.
I: But with your ex it was different right? She took more initiative?
R: Yes, she was a bit more dominant. That is what I consider to be good sex. Better sex.
Rex does not necessarily prefer being dominant, but especially relies on this more traditionally masculine role when he engages in casual sex and/or when his partner does not ‘take any initiative’. Rather, he prefers a more balanced sexual interaction, in which his female partner also takes initiative. This is what he considers to be a satisfying sexual interaction. Anton (male, 25, heterosexual, single) also described himself as dominant in bed. Although he indicated that he liked being dominant, he also felt uncomfortable sometimes.
I: Do you see yourself as dominant?
A: Yeah, I think so… Eventually. I want to, but I am also insecure in that way. Haha. Ehm… pff… In general I want to be the one who decides the direction and how it [the sexual interaction] develops. I am also quite stubborn. I want to be like ‘now you are going to lay like this, now like that…’
I: So in general quite dominant?
A: Yeah, but if I really like someone, I also like it when she is on top of me. Only… Yeah, I think if I do not have any feelings, I base it more on the dominance thing or something?
Initiating sex and acting dominant brings along some insecurities for Anton, but in general he likes taking the lead. Interestingly he also expresses that if he does not
have feelings for someone, he will act more dominant. If he does like someone, he expresses that there is more room for more variation and/or balance.
Towards a balance in bed
In keeping with their preferences regarding patterns of initiation, Alex, Max, Elton and Tim did not necessarily think of themselves as dominant. When discussing dominance, Alex and Max openly spoke about how the liked it when their female partners would take on a dominant role. Alex (male, 23, heterosexual, relationship): “I really appreciate it when a woman takes the lead. Not just before the sex, but also during the sex”. Max (male, 23, heterosexual, relationship) said “I mostly like it when my partner is a bit more dominant [than me]. I think I like that and it also excites me when a woman is dominant”. Not viewing themselves as dominant and their love for ‘a woman on top’ is in contrast with a more traditional script of heterosexual sex that portrays the man as dominant and the woman as submissive. Furthermore, these men portrayed a more fluid and situational picture of themselves in relation to sexual interactions and they all indicated that they prefered a more balanced dynamic in bed. Max, for example, talks about how he likes to start the sex, but underlines that intercourse should be a joint effort: “Initiating [sex] is something I like, yes. But it should not be that I am like the only one who says what is going to happen… Yeah… I also like it when somebody is on top of me, like ‘yo, you take control for a while, I am not going to do all the work’. Come on, this is something we are doing together, right?”. To Max a sexual interaction and the sexual roles connected to that
interaction is not just about ‘who gets to decide what’, but also about a sharedness of responsibility. Lastly, Tim (male, 27, heterosexual, single) illustrates how sex roles are dynamic, situational and how they are also determined in social negotiation with one’s partner: “Some people are like ‘I am very dominant or I am really sub
[submissive]’ and I find everything nice and interesting, but sometimes it is also more like ‘if you are into that, I am also into that’”. Tim talks about how he is not
necessarily either, but that the way he behaves in bed is also a reaction to how the other behaves and what the other desires.
Rose and Luna indicated that they liked ‘being dominated’/’being submissive’. When I asked Rose (female, 24, pansexual, open relationship) how she would describe herself in bed, she answered:
R: Often more submissive. On the one hand this feels physically nicer, but it also feels nice because I then feel very submissive… I can also be a bit more dominant, but more often submissive. It feels more natural or something.
I: What do you mean by ‘more natural’?
R: Hm… That it suits me better. It is also something I have gotten used to or
something? At least when I was younger. When I was eighteen I had a lot of sex with guys who were much older, so I automatically ended up in that role [submissive], also because they would do that [be more dominant] and also because I was not very sexually experienced, so I would just follow.
In tune with a more normative heterosexual sexual script, Rose expresses how, on the one hand, she enjoys submissiveness on both a physical and a psychological level. On the other hand, she also expresses that being submissive might also feel more natural to her, because past experiences have conditioned her to be so inclined. Later on during our interview she said the following regarding how she behaves during intercourse:
R: I have the feeling that since I am with Johnny [boyfriend], I have become more dominant, also because he likes that. Ehm… Also because it feels more safe to
do that with him or something.
I: What do you mean by ‘safe’?
R: That it feels more safe to actively do things than when you are having a one-night-stand with someone. (Rose)
Rose makes a division between the familiar and comfortable sex she has with her boyfriend Johnny, in which there is more room for variation than the sex she has with strangers. In the latter interaction she feels less safe ‘to experiment’ and is more likely to fall back into a more traditional role for women in heterosexual sexual encounters. Just like Rose, Luna (female 22, bisexual, relationship) also likes “to be dominated”. When discussing this topic, she expressed that she was worried that
