Skip to main content
NCBI home page
International Journal of Sexual Health logoLink to International Journal of Sexual Health
. 2022 Mar 29;34(3):397–408. doi: 10.1080/19317611.2022.2053027

An Exploratory Study of Sexual Aggression Tactics as a Function of Perpetrator Gender and Victim Gender

Errin Fornicola a, Zoë D Peterson b,c,✉
PMCID: PMC10903606  PMID: 38596274

Abstract

Objectives: This study sought to examine the association between perpetrator gender and victim gender and the use of sexually aggressive tactics (e.g., persistent enticement, verbal pressure, taking advantage of the inability to consent, and ignoring explicit non-consent). Methods: Participants were recruited from research panels to complete an online survey. They were asked to indicate which, if any, of 39 sexually aggressive tactics—representing four categories and nine subcategories—they had used to obtain sex, answering based on the gender with whom they most often have sex. Participants included 132 men who answered based on experiences with men (MSM), 131 men who answered based on experiences with women (MSW), 232 women who answered based on experiences with men (WSM), and 56 women who answered based on experiences with women (WSW). Results: MSM were more likely than all other groups to use enticement and more likely than WSM to engage in explicitly nonconsensual sex. WSM were more likely than MSW and WSW to take advantage of their partner’s impaired ability to consent. There was no difference among groups in use of verbal pressure. Conclusions: Gendered sexual stereotypes may contribute to the types of tactics used by men and women against men and women.

Keywords: Sexual assault, sexual offenders, sexual identity, LGBTQ, rape, sexual coercion, sexual minority, sexual violence, women, gender-based violence, gay men, lesbians, sex/gender roles, sexual abuse

Prototypically, sexual aggression—including pressuring or manipulating a partner for sex, having sex with someone who is incapacitated, or using threats or force to obtain sex—is perpetrated by men against women. Consistent with that, most research on sexual perpetration focuses on men, and most research on sexual victimization focuses on women. Indeed, much of the scholarship on sexual aggression is guided by sexual script theory (Gagnon & Simon, 1973). Sexual script theory posits that, from a young age, children receive gendered messages from their caregivers, peers, and society about what is or is not acceptable or typical behavior during sex, and “sex” is typically presumed to be heterosex. As a result, individuals grow up with a preconceived idea of the “script” that they are expected to follow during sexual encounters as dictated by their cultural learning (Wiederman, 2005). For example, a traditional heterosexual script posits that men, who are thought to have very strong sexual needs, should initiate sex, and women, who are thought to be sexually reluctant, should act as “gatekeepers,” resisting those advances even if they are, in fact, interested (Byers, 1996). This expectation for “token refusal” could lead to coercion such that a woman who does not wish to have sex may say “no” to sex, but a man may mistake that for coy script-adherence and apply pressure until the woman eventually goes along with his advances (Wiederman, 2005).

Sexual script theory could help to explain men’s sexual aggression against women. Yet, research has clearly demonstrated that men also can be victims and women also can be perpetrators of sexual aggression. For example, according to the Centers for Disease Control’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, 9.5% of male rape victims (i.e., victims who experienced completed or attempted forced penetration or completed alcohol/drug-facilitated penetration) reported being raped by women, and 81.6% of men who experienced verbal pressure for sex reported being pressured by a woman (Smith et al., 2017). Further, research suggests that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ) individuals experience high rates of sexual aggression. In a sample of college students, Ford and Soto-Marquez (2016) found that approximately 24.7% of heterosexual women reported experiencing sexual assault (intercourse through force or incapacitation), as compared to 11.4% of lesbian and 37.8% of bisexual women. Among men, 12.7% of heterosexual men reported a sexual assault, as compared to 24.3% of gay and 17.7% of bisexual men. Importantly, this study did not assess the gender of the perpetrator; indeed, very little research has investigated perpetrators of same-gender sexual aggression

Although typically applied to men’s perpetration against women, sexual script theory may not be incompatible with women’s perpetration against men or with same-gender perpetration. Certain stereotypes espoused within traditional sexual scripts can be used to explain and justify women’s sexual aggression against men. For example, if women believe that men are always in the mood for sex, then they may assume that explicit consent is not needed from a man before proceeding (Brousseau et al., 2012). Additionally, same-gender-attracted individuals grow up exposed to the same societal messages as their heterosexual peers, and that gendered socialization is likely to impact their sexual interactions. For example, because, according to the traditional sexual scripts, men are always in the mood for sex, there may be an assumption that consent is irrelevant in men’s same-gender interactions (Waldner-Haugrud, 1999). The heteronormative script may also affect lesbians’ sexual encounters, such that, if women are assumed to be sexually passive, then sexual aggression within women’s same-gender interactions may be assumed to be impossible (Waldner-Haugrud, 1999).

There is a continuum of sexually aggressive tactics that includes continuing to try and arouse or entice someone after they say no, using pressure and manipulation, taking advantage of intoxication or incapacitation, making threats of harm, and using physical force (Kern & Peterson, 2020; Struckman-Johnson et al., 2003). Understanding the types of tactics that sexual perpetrators use can inform prevention approaches. Prevention programming should provide comprehensive education about the diversity of tactics that perpetrators use and should develop examples and role plays that best mirror real-life situations. Additionally, prior research suggests that different types of sexually aggressive tactics are associated with different personality and situational risk factors (DeGue et al., 2010; Lyndon et al., 2007; Muñoz et al., 2011); thus, different types of intervention may be needed to address different tactics of sexual aggression.

Although there is limited research on women as perpetrators, the small amount of existing research suggests that men and women may use different types of sexually aggressive tactics. For example, Struckman-Johnson et al. (2003) found that, in heterosexual encounters, men were more likely than women to report using tactics of sexual arousal (e.g., persistent kissing and touching), emotional manipulation and lies, and intoxication; there were no gender differences in likelihood of using force tactics, likely because those tactics were rare among all participants. Similarly, Buday and Peterson (2015) found that men were more likely than women to endorsing having used verbal coercion and exploitation of an incapacitated state, but there was no difference in use of physical force because endorsement was very rare for both men (3.1%) and women (1.5%). In contrast, Schatzel-Murphy et al. (2009) found that men were more likely than women to attempt to seduce an unwilling partner (i.e., use arousal or enticement), but they found no gender differences in likelihood of using manipulation, intoxication, or force to obtain nonconsensual sex. Some researchers have suggested that gender differences in use of sexually aggressive tactics may be decreasing or disappearing over time, such that there are smaller gender differences in perpetration of sexual aggression among younger cohorts as compared to older cohorts across all types of aggressive tactics (Anderson et al., 2021; Smeaton et al., 2018).

Notably, it is possible that the gender of the victim also plays a role in the type of aggressive tactic employed. The studies cited above compared men’s perpetration of sexual aggression against women with women’s perpetration of sexual aggression against men. Given that, gender of the perpetrator and gender of the victim were confounded. Thus, the gender differences found in prior research may reflect differences in the tactics used by male versus female perpetrators or they may reflect differences in the tactics used against male versus female victims.

One of the few studies that examined both perpetrator gender and victim gender demonstrated that the most commonly-used sexual aggression tactics differed as a function of the interaction of these variables. In a study of German first-year college students, Krahé and Berger (2013) found that among men who only have sex with women, the most common perpetration tactic they had experienced from a woman was incapacitation through alcohol; however, for men who only have sex with men, the most common tactic they had experienced from another man was threat or use of force. For women who only have sex with men, the most common tactic that they had experienced from a man was verbal pressure; in contrast, for women who only have sex with women, the most common tactic they had experienced from another woman was incapacitation from drugs or alcohol. Krahé and Berger (2013) published their study nearly a decade ago, and their sample was disproportionately heterosexual (only 2.9% had had exclusively same-gender sexual contact). Additionally, the authors did not directly statistically compare the prevalence of tactic use across all participant groups in their study (i.e., men who have sex with women, men who have sex with men, women who have sex with men, and women who have sex with women). They also examined only three broad categories of sexually aggressive tactics: verbal pressure, use of alcohol, and use of force. Nevertheless, their findings are valuable in illustrating the importance of considering both victim and perpetrator gender in influencing sexually aggressive tactics

Inclusive research that considers similarities and differences in sexual aggression perpetration across genders and in same- and mixed-gender dyads is important in ensuring that sexual aggression prevention interventions are applicable to all individuals. The current exploratory, descriptive study examined how gender of the perpetrator and gender of the victim function in interaction to predict the use of a variety of sexual aggression tactics.

Method

Participants

A final sample of 551 participants was recruited through Amazon’s TurkPrime panels in May of 2018. Participants recruited through TurkPrime panels (recently renamed CloudResearch panels) have been shown to be more diverse and to have less prior research exposure than participants recruited through Amazon MTurk (Chandler et al., 2019). From the panels, we requested a recruitment of approximately 150 male and 150 female heterosexual participants and 150 male and 150 female participants who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. All participants were required to be over age 18 and to live in the United States. Participants were compensated at a pre-arranged rate by the panel that recruited them; rates may not have been the same for all participants, as rates were negotiated by each panel separately and were not disclosed to the researchers.

The sample consisted of 288 women and 263 men. In terms of their sexual identity, 294 participants (53.4%) identified as straight or heterosexual, 108 (19.6%) as lesbian or gay, 130 (23.6%) as bisexual, 12 (2.2%) as pansexual, two (0.4%) as queer, 1 (0.2%) as undecided, and 3 (0.5%) as some other sexual identity. Other demographics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographics of Total Sample and as a Function of Respondent and Partner Gender.

Demographic variable Total sample
(n = 551)		 MSM
(n = 132)		 MSW
(n = 131)		 WSM
(n = 232)		 WSW
(n = 56)
  M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Age* 42.62 (15.96) 46.85 (15.71) 45.63 (15.50) 39.82 (15.52) 37.18 (15.91)
Years of education
 14.49 (3.10)
 15.05 (3.41)
 14.25 (2.93)
 14.24 (3.08)
 14.81 (2.65)
 
 n (%)
 n (%)
 n (%)
 n (%)
 n (%)
Ethnicity          
 Hispanic 44 (8.0) 12 (9.1) 9 (6.9) 19 (8.2) 4 (7.1)
 Non-Hispanic 504 (91.5) 119 (90.2) 121 (92.4) 212 (91.4) 52 (92.9)
 Missing 3 (0.5) 1 (0.8) 1 (0.8) 1 (0.4) 0 (0.0)
Racea          
 American Indian/Alaskan Native 23 (4.2) 4 (3.0) 5 (3.8) 13 (5.6) 1 (1.8)
 Asian/Asian American 26 (4.7) 9 (6.8) 1 (0.8) 13 (5.6) 3 (5.4)
 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1 (0.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.4) 0 (0.0)
 Black/African American 58 (10.5) 10 (7.6) 16 (12.2) 24 (10.3) 8 (14.3)
 White/European American 452 (82.2) 108 (81.8) 111 (84.7) 191 (82.3) 43 (76.8)
Employment*          
 Employed full time 246 (44.6) 73 (55.3) 64 (48.9) 87 (37.5) 22 (39.3)
 Employed part time 53 (9.6) 5 (3.8) 7 (5.3) 26 (11.2) 15 (26.8)
 Employed inconsistently (temporary/seasonal worker) 11 (2.0) 1 (0.8) 5 (3.8) 4 (1.7) 1 (1.8)
 Unemployed 237 (43.0) 53 (40.2) 54 (41.2) 112 (48.3) 18 (32.1)
 Missing 4 (0.7) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.8) 3 (1.3) 0 (0.0)
Household income          
 Below $15,000 71 (12.9) 13 (9.8) 14 (10.7) 35 (15.1) 9 (16.1)
 $15,000–$24,999 72 (13.1) 14 (10.6) 17 (13.0) 34 (14.7) 7 (12.5)
 $25,000–$39,999 99 (18.0) 25 (18.9) 24 (18.3) 41 (17.7) 9 (16.1)
 $40,000–$54,999 81 (14.7) 14 (10.6) 17 (13.0) 42 (18.1) 8 (14.3)
 $55,000–$69,999 74 (13.4) 18 (13.6) 15 (11.5) 31 (13.4) 10 (17.9)
 $70,000–$84,999 51 (9.3) 16 (12.1) 13 (9.9) 18 (7.8) 4 (7.1)
 $85,000–$99,999 26 (4.7) 8 (6.1) 7 (5.3) 10 (4.3) 1 (1.8)
 $100,000–$149,999 54 (9.8) 16 (12.1) 19 (14.5) 12 (5.2) 7 (12.5)
 $150,000 or above 22 (4.0) 8 (6.1) 5 (3.8) 8 (3.4) 1 (1.8)
 Missing 1 (0.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.4) 0 (0.0)
Open in a new tab

aParticipants could check more than one category. There were no significant group differences in any racial category.

* Significant difference among the four groups (p < .05).

Measures

Participants were asked, “With which gender do you typically engage in sexual activity? (If you have sex with both men and women, answer based on the gender that represents the majority of your recent sexual partners.)” Based on their response, they were directed to a version of the sexual aggression measure with pronouns corresponding to that gender. We needed to restrict responses on the perpetration measure to only one gender so that we were able to accurately categorize the gender of the victim in our analyses.

To measure tactics of sexual aggression, participants completed the new Sexual Initiation Strategies Scale (SISS; Peterson, 2022; Peterson et al., 2021). This measure was chosen because it includes a broader range of sexually aggressive strategies than other measures. In college and community samples, the measure has shown strong evidence of convergent validity in both men and women through correlations with other measures of sexual aggression history and with measures of related constructs such as rape myth acceptance and sexual narcissism (Peterson, 2022). The measure also has demonstrated adequate test-retest reliability (80% agreement; k = 5.38) and interitem reliability (KR20 α = 0.77; Peterson, 2022). The SISS includes 55 items, but 16 items are filler items designed to reduce socially desirable responding.

Guided by Kern and Peterson’s (2020) classification of types of sexual aggression, the 39 sexually aggressive tactics used to obtain oral, anal, or vaginal sex were categorized into four broad categories with a total of nine subcategories (Table 2). The first broad category included seven items and measured sex that is explicitly nonconsensual. It was comprised of three subcategories: (1) sex obtained through physical force or restraint (four items; e.g., “Harming her/him physically if s/he initially says ‘no’ to sex.”), (2) ignoring a direct refusal (two items; e.g., “After s/he says ‘no’ to sex, just going ahead with sex anyway.”), and (3) sex obtained through threats of harm (one item; “Threatening to physically harm her/him or someone close to her/him if s/he doesn’t have sex.”). The second broad category included eight items and measured sex in which the ability to consent is impaired. This category included the subcategories of (1) sex with someone who is intoxicated (six items; e.g., “Taking advantage of the fact that s/he is too drunk or high [e.g., confused, slurred speech, stumbling, etc.] to say ‘no.’”), (2) sex in which the person does not have an opportunity to object (one item; “Just starting the sexual act [e.g., while fooling around, penetrating her vagina or anus/his anus when s/he wasn’t expecting it] without providing her/him with an opportunity to object.”), and (3) sex that occurs with someone who is asleep (one item; “Starting sex with her/him while s/he is asleep.”). The third category included 21 items measuring use of pressure to engage in sex. The third category included subcategories of (1) verbal pressure and manipulation (16 items; e.g., “Saying things that you know s/he wants to hear even if they are not entirely true in order to get her/him to have sex [e.g., saying ‘I love you’ when you don’t; promising her/him a future relationship when you don’t want a relationship with her/him]”), (2) situational pressure (three items; e.g., “Taking away her/his car keys so that s/he cannot leave until s/he has sex”), and (3) use of older age or authority as pressure (two items; e.g., “Using your older age [if s/he was a teenager and you were at least 5 years older than her/him] to influence her/him to have sex.”). Finally, the fourth level included three items and measured enticement tactics (derived from Struckman-Johnson et al., 2003; e.g., “After s/he initially says “no” to sex, continuing to touch and kiss her/him in the hopes that s/he will give in to sex”).

Table 2.

Endorsements of Different Categories of Sexually Aggressive Tactics as a Function of Respondent and Partner Gender.

  Total
(N = 551)
 MSM
(n = 132)
 MSW
(n = 131)
 WSM
(n = 232)
 WSW
(n = 56)
Category or subcategory n % n % n % n % n %
Endorsement of any type of sexual aggression* 203 36.8 59 44.7a 42 32.1b,c 90 38.8a,b 12 21.4c
Explicit nonconsent* 14 2.5 8 6.1a 4 3.1a,b 1 0.4b 1 1.8a,b
 Physical force or restraint* 6 1.1 4 3.0a 2 1.5a,b 0 0.0b 0 0.0a,b
 Ignoring a direct refusal 9 1.6 4 3.0 4 3.1 0 0.0 1 1.8
 Threatening physical harm 3 0.5 1 0.8 1 0.8 1 0.4 0 0.0
Impaired ability to consent* 146 26.5 39 29.5a,b 25 19.1a 73 31.5b 9 16.1a
 Impaired from alcohol or drugs* 22 4.0 13 9.8a 5 3.8a,b 3 1.3b 1 1.8a,b
 Not given the opportunity to object 118 21.4 28 21.2 23 17.6 59 25.4 8 14.3
 Asleep* 58 10.5 17 12.9a 5 3.8b 32 13.8a 4 7.1a,b
Pressure 101 18.3 29 22.0 30 22.9 37 15.9 5 8.9
 Verbal pressure 92 16.7 26 19.7 28 21.4 22 14.2 5 8.9
 Situational pressure 10 1.8 5 3.8 1 0.8 4 1.7 0 0.0
 Use of authority or age 9 1.6 4 3.0 3 2.3 2 0.9 0 0.0
Enticement* 69 12.5 27 20.5a 14 10.7b 25 10.7b 3 5.4b
Open in a new tab

Notes. MSM: men reporting on their use of sexual aggression tactics with men; MSW: men reporting on their use of sexual aggression tactics with women; WSM: women reporting on their use of sexual aggression tactics with men; WSW: women reporting on their use of sexual aggression tactics with women.

*Groups differ significantly (p<.05) based on a chi-square test. Within a row, different subscripts indicate significant between-group differences (p<.05) based on follow-up Fisher Exact tests.

Bolded lines represent the broad categories, and non-bolded lines represent subcategories.

These categories and subcategories were derived conceptually rather than statistically (e.g., through factor analysis or examinations of interitem reliability). It is not clear that sexual aggression measures assess a latent construct (see Koss et al., 2007); rather, they might be better conceptualized as behavioral sampling measures (Peterson, 2022); thus for most analyses reported below, we dichotomized participants as having engaged or not engaged in each type of aggression based on whether the participant endorsed one or more items corresponding to each category/subcategory.

Procedures

Participants accessed the survey through a link on the TurkPrime Panels invitation. The panel service prescreened participants for eligibility. The online survey included the SISS as well as another measure of sexual perpetration and measures of sexual victimization history (not reported here). At the end of the study, participants were asked to provide information about their sexual history (e.g., number of male, female, and other gender sexual partners for a variety of different sexual acts) and demographic information such as age, race, ethnicity, and education level. Participation took about 15 minutes.

Results

A total of 782 eligible participants began the questionnaire. Twenty-two participants did not identify the gender of people with whom they most often have sex and were thus eliminated. Next, 84 participants, who did not endorse any SISS items, including filler items or reading checks, were eliminated, as they were presumed not to have read the measure or to have never engaged in any sexual behavior. Participants who did not identify their gender identity (n = 54) were also eliminated. Finally, participants who did not identify as cisgender men or women were eliminated, as they did not constitute a large enough group on which to perform separate analyses (n = 23). For the remaining participants, we conducted several data quality checks: We examined time spent completing the questionnaire. The fastest completion time was 125 seconds and the slowest was 13,165 seconds. Based on examination of a box plot, there were no outliers for rapid completion. We opted not to remove outliers for slow completion because participants could choose to stop in the middle of the questionnaire and return later. We examined IP addresses for all respondents to identify any duplicate IP addresses or addresses outside the United States; none were identified. Finally, we removed 48 individuals who reported improbable, nonsensical, or frivolous responses to open-ended questions on the survey (e.g., reported more than 10,000 anal sex partners, reported both male and female penile-vaginal intercourse partners).

Among the final sample of participants (N = 551), 36.8% reported at least one tactic of sexual aggression. Looking at respondent gender (independent of partner gender), there was no significant difference in men’s (38.4%) and women’s (35.4%) likelihood of endorsing at least one sexually aggressive tactic on the SISS, χ2 (1, N = 551) = 0.53, p = .47, ɸ = 0.03

To examine the primary research question, we considered how perpetrator gender interacts with victim gender to predict use of different sexually aggressive tactics. To that end, the final sample of participants was divided into four groups (Table 2): men who most frequently have sex with men (meaning that they answered the questionnaire based on their experiences with men; MSM; n = 132); men who most frequently have sex with women (meaning that they answered the questionnaire based on their experiences with women; MSW; n = 131); women who most frequently have sex with women (WMS; n = 56); and women who most frequently have sex with men (WSM; n = 232). We compared participants in the four groups on all demographic variables presented in Table 1. There were significant group differences in age; however, age was not associated with use of any aggressive tactic, rpb = 0.02; with use of explicit non-consent tactics, rpb = −0.02; with use of impaired ability to consent tactics, rpb = −0.03; with use of pressure rpb = −0.02; with use of enticement, rpb = 0.001; or with the total number of aggressive tactics, r = −0.05, and effect sizes were near zero. Similarly, there were significant group differences in income category, but income category was not significantly associated with use of any aggressive tactic, ɸ = 0.11; with use of explicit non-consent tactics, ɸ = 0.09; with use of impaired ability to consent tactics, ɸ = 0.09; with use of pressure, ɸ = 0.07; with use of enticement, ɸ = 0.07; or with the total number of aggressive tactics, ηp2 = 0.008. Thus, consistent with recommendations (Fan, 2012), we did not include these demographic variables as covariates in the analyses below.

To address our research questions, we used chi-square tests for independence as well as Fisher’s Exact follow-up tests (Table 2). An analysis of overall endorsement assessing whether participants reported using at least one of the 39 sexual aggression tactics on the SISS was significant, χ2 (3, N = 551) = 10.88, p = 0.01, ɸ = 0.14. We found that MSM were more likely to endorse any tactic use than were MSW (p = .04) or WSW (p = .003), and WSM were more likely than WSW to report use of any tactic (p = .02). Looking at the four broad categories of tactics separately, we found a significant difference among the groups in relation to use of explicit non-consent, χ2 (3, N = 551) = 11.04, p =.01, ɸ = 0.14. MSM were more likely to report use of one or more explicit non-consent tactic as compared to WSM, p = .002; there were no other significant differences among the groups. We found a significant difference among the groups in relation to use of impaired ability to consent tactics, χ2 (3, N = 551) = 10.39, p =.02, ɸ = 0.14, with WSM having a higher likelihood of reporting one or more of these tactics as compared to MSW, p = .01, and as compared to WSW, p = .02. There were no other differences among the groups. For the category of pressure, there was no significant group difference, χ2 (3, N = 551) = 7.18, p = .07, ɸ = 0.11. Finally, for the category of enticement, there was a significant group difference, χ2 (3, N = 551) = 11.26, p = .01, ɸ = 0.14, with MSM having a higher likelihood of endorsing this category of tactics as compared to all other groups, ps < .05. There were no significant differences among the other groups.

We also examined endorsement of subcategories of sexual aggression as function of group (Table 2). These analyses should be interpreted with caution given the very small cell sizes for many of the analyses. Despite the small cell sizes, though, there were significant group differences for the subcategory of use of physical force, χ2 (3, N = 551) = 8.02, p = .046, ɸ = 0.12, with MSM endorsing higher rates of physical force than WSM, p = .02. There were also group differences for impairment from alcohol/drugs, χ2 (3, N = 551) = 16.94, p =.001, ɸ = 0.18, with MSM having a higher likelihood of endorsing those items than WSM, p < .001. Finally, there were group differences in starting sex while the other person was asleep, χ2 (3, N = 551) = 10.35, p =.02, ɸ = 0.14, with MSM and WSM having higher rates of endorsement than MSW, p = .01 and p = .002, respectively.

Finally, we calculated a continuous variable representing the total number of sexually aggressive tactics (out of 39 possible) endorsed by each participant (M = 0.91; SD = 1.84; Minimum = 0; Maximum = 12). We conducted an ANOVA with the four groups to compare the total number of aggressive tactics reported. There was a significant group difference, F (3, 547) = 3.49, p = .02, ηp2 = 0.02. Post-hoc analyses with a Bonferroni correction revealed that MSM reported significantly more aggressive tactics (M = 1.33; SD = 2.39) than WSW (M = 0.52; SD = 1.60), p = .03. There were no other other significant differences among any of the other groups (for MSW, M = 0.78; SD = 1.69, and for WSM, M = 0.83; SD = 1.57).

Discussion

The goal of this study was to conduct an exploratory examination of differences in sexually aggressive tactics used by men and women in same- and mixed-gender dyads. More specifically, we examined how the gender of the perpetrator and the gender of the victim function in interaction to predict the use of various sexual aggression tactics. We categorized our tactics of sexual aggression into four broad conceptual categories and nine subcategories (guided by categories and subcategories observed by Kern & Peterson, 2020, in participant open-ended responses) and compared the likelihood of men’s use of the tactics against other men (MSM), men’s use of the tactics against women (MSW), women’s use of the tactics against men (WSM), and women’s use of the tactics against women (WSW).

Our results demonstrated that, across the four broad categories of tactics, there were significant differences among the groups for three out of four categories: explicit nonconsent, impairment in ability to consent, and enticement. Notably, there were no significant group differences in use of pressure tactics, despite the fact that these were relatively common strategies, endorsed by 18.3% of the total sample. Across the categories of tactics in which there were significant group differences, the patterns of results varied. In some cases, group differences it seemed to be driven by the gender of the partner (i.e., the victim), and in some cases it seemed to be driven by an interaction between the gender of the respondent (i.e., the perpetrator) and the gender of their partner (i.e., the victim).

For example, group differences in the category of impaired ability to consent seemed to reflect the gender of the victim more than the gender of the perpetrator. WSM were more likely to endorse that category of tactics than MSW and than WSW, and MSM were marginally (although not significantly) more likely to endorse that category as compared MSW and WSW, suggesting that individuals of any gender may be more willing to use these tactics on men than on women. This is consistent with sexual stereotypes that men are always willing to have sex (Sakaluk et al., 2014; Wiederman, 2005). Individuals may assume that their male partner doesn’t need to explicitly consent, or to be sober or awake, before beginning sexual activity because any man would welcome sex.

For other tactics, the group differences seemed to reflect both the sex of the victim and the sex of the perpetrator. For example, MSM were significantly more likely than any other group to use enticement strategies as a way to obtain sex from a reluctant partner. The particularly high rates of enticement among the MSM might reflect a problematic convergence of male sexual stereotypes. MSM are potentially impacted, first, by the stereotype that men are supposed to sexually initiate and “seduce” their reluctant partner and, second, by the stereotype that men are always in the mood for sex. Given these two stereotypes, some MSM may believe that they should be sexually assertive and persistent in response to their partner’s reluctance; they may also believe that, given that their partner is a man and thus presumably always in the mood for sex, any resistance must be simply token refusal or game-playing. Given those stereotypical assumptions, it perhaps makes sense that MSM might be the group that is most likely to respond to resistance by continuing to try and entice or arouse their reluctant partner. Notably, MSM also were the group with the highest rates of endorsement of any aggressive tactic (although the difference between MSM and WSM did not research the threshold for significance) and the group that endorsed the largest number of sexually aggressive tactics.

Similarly, there seemed to be an interaction between gender of the perpetrator and gender of the victim in relation to explicit non-consent (i.e., use of force, threat of force, or ignoring a direct refusal). Specifically, MSM were most likely to endorse items in this category, and WSM were the least likely. This is consistent with the findings of Krahé and Berger (2013) who found that physical force was the most common tactic reported by men who have sex with men, whereas sex through incapacitation from drugs or alcohol was the most common tactic reported by men who have sex with women.

It is interesting that most group differences in the types of tactics used seemed to be driven, not by respondent (perpetrator) gender difference, but by differences in the gender of the victim or by an interaction between perpetrator gender and victim gender. Most research that has examined gender differences in use of sexually aggressive tactics has focused on heterosexual aggression. When differences in use of particular tactics were found in those studies, it was often assumed that those differences were related to the gender of perpetrator, but because the studies examined only men’s perpetration against women and women’s perpetration against men, the gender of the perpetrator was confounded with the gender of victim, potentially obscuring the fact that perpetrators (of either gender) may use different tactics against male and female victims.

Although the primary purpose of this study was to evaluate how respondent (perpetrator) gender and partner (victim) gender interact to influence use of sexually aggressive tactics, it is worth noting that, collapsing across partner gender, there was no gender difference in respondents’ likelihood of endorsing a sexually aggressive tactic in this study. This differs from many prior studies, which have found that men perpetrate sexual aggression at higher rates than women (e.g., Buday & Peterson, 2015; Krahé & Berger, 2013; Struckman-Johnson et al., 2003). One possible explanation for this is that the current study used a new measure, the SISS. The SISS was specifically designed to better capture women’s sexual aggression as compared to prior measures of perpetration. Consistent with that, in a sample of college men and women, Peterson (2022) did not find any differences between men’s and women’s endorsements of verbal pressure or coercion or the SISS, although men did endorse more severe and illegal sexual assault behavior on the SISS than women. Further, some prior studies (e.g., Schatzel-Murphy et al., 2009) also have found minimal gender differences in use of sexually aggressive tactics, and two recent studies (Anderson et al., 2021; Smeaton et al., 2018) have found that, although there were gender differences in use of sexually aggressive tactics among older cohorts (Baby Boom and Gen X individuals), there were no gender differences in use of sexually aggressive tactics among a younger (Millennial) cohort. Thus, the current study joins a small but growing set of studies that has failed to find the expected gender differences in use of sexually aggressive tactics.

Limitations

This is a purely descriptive study. Our sample is likely not representative of the broader population, and we did not match participants across our four groups in terms of demographic or personality characteristics; thus, it is possible that the four groups in this study differed on important variables other than their gender and the gender of their sexual partners. Therefore, we cannot conclude that group differences are caused by gender or partner gender.

Additionally, in this study, we asked participants to identify the gender of their most recent sexual partners, and we only assessed their sexual perpetration against individuals of that gender. This allowed us to categorize the gender of the victim while also limiting the length of the questionnaire (so that participants did not need to complete the entire SISS based on both genders). This approach does have a couple of disadvantages, though. First, this means that our groups do not necessarily reflect participants’ own sexual identities nor do they reflect the entirety of their sexual behavior. For example, individuals classified as MSM in our study do not necessarily identify as gay men and may not engage in sex exclusively with male partners. Second and relatedly, this means that individuals who have sex with both men and women answered our questionnaire based on experiences with only one of those two genders; thus, if a participant answered the questionnaire based on experiences with women, but had perpetrated sexual aggression against male partners, those instances of aggression would not have been captured in our study.

This study focused only on cisgender men and women as perpetrators and victims of sexual aggression. Yet, research has demonstrated that transgender and nonbinary individuals are highly vulnerable to sexual victimization (Murchison et al., 2019). Our sample of participants did not include enough non-cisgender individuals to allow for meaningful comparison, and we only asked participants about whether their most recent partners were men or women because we expected that very few, if any, participants would report that the majority of their partners were another gender. Still, in future research, it would be valuable to assess the types of sexually aggressive tactics commonly used by and against trans and nonbinary individuals.

Another significant limitation of this study was the relatively small group of WSW. This problem was compounded by the fact that, when compared to the three other groups, WSW showed relatively low rates of endorsement across almost all categories of sexual aggression tactics. Inspection of rates of sexual aggression endorsement suggests that women with female partners may engage in particularly low levels of sexual aggression, and this is consistent with some prior research (Ford & Soto-Marquez, 2016; Smith et al., 2017). In other words, there may be an interaction between gender of the perpetrator and gender of the victim, such that women who have sex with women have particularly low levels of sexual aggression perpetration, but our analyses may have lacked power to detect that effect. Notably, as depicted in Table 2, WSW had the lowest overall endorsement of sexually aggressive tactics compared to the other three groups, although the difference was only significant when compared to MSM, the group with the highest rates of endorsement. Similarly, WSW endorsed the lowest total number of sexually aggressive tactics, significantly less than MSM, who had the highest number.

A further limitation is that this study relied on self-reports of sexual aggression perpetration—a socially undesirable behavior. Strang and Peterson (2020) used a fake lie-detector procedure to demonstrate that a substantial portion of men intentionally conceal their sexually aggressive behavior—especially more severe sexually aggressive behavior—on self-report measures. Thus, participants may have underreported sexual aggression in our study. Related to this, it possible that there were group differences in willingness to admit to sexually aggressive behavior. As a result of efforts to reduce sexual violence on college campuses and as a result of the #MeToo movement (Gronert, 2019), there has been a tremendous amount of attention on men’s sexual aggression against women in recent years. Given that, it is possible that MSW are particularly hesitant to admit using sexual aggression, as use of these tactics may be less socially acceptable among this group as compared to MSM, WSM, and WSW.

Implications

The results of this study have important implications for prevention of sexual aggression and for deepening the understanding of the forms it can take. First, this study found that rates of sexual aggression against men are high, and for some tactics, rates were equal to or greater than rates of sexual aggression against women. Male victims of sexual aggression often have been ignored both in research and in prevention and response efforts, and there remains considerable societal stigma against male victims (Kimerling et al., 2002; Peterson et al., 2011; Stephens & Eaton, 2014). Traditionally, education and prevention programs have targeted men as the perpetrators and women as the victims of sexual aggression (Lonsway et al., 2009). As efforts are furthered to prevent sexual aggression, they must be done in a way that is applicable to all victims and perpetrators.

Second, by including both mixed-gender- and same-gender-attracted participants, this study serves to expand the literature on sexual aggression among LGBQ individuals. Our results show, as do other studies using national samples (Smith et al., 2017), that men do perpetrate against other men (at fairly high rates; 46.9% of MSM in our sample) and women do perpetrate against other women (at lower rates; 28.6% of WSW in our sample). Sexual aggression prevention interventions and education need to be inclusive and applicable to LGBQ individuals, and LGBQ-specific programming within LGBQ communities is also necessary.

Finally, the differences we found in use of tactics point to the need for future studies to further examine why perpetrators use some tactics over others. To further the goal of preventing sexual aggression and aiding and supporting victims, research and interventions must be applicable to the different forms that sexual aggression can take, as well as to perpetrators and victims of all genders. Overall, the results of this study provide important information on sexual aggression tactic use among male and female perpetrators and victims to help inform the development of interventions that are most applicable and effective for diverse populations.

Acknowledgment

This project was conducted at the University of Missouri-St. Louis as part of Errin Fornicola’s thesis under the supervision of Zoë Peterson. The authors are grateful to Dr. Emily Gerstein for her input on the project.

Funding Statement

This project was funded, in part, by a grant from the University of Missouri-St. Louis College of Arts and Sciences.

Internal Review Board statement

The methods of the study presented in this article were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

References

  1. Anderson, P. B., Struckman-Johnson, C., & Smeaton, G. L. (2021). Generation by gender differences in use of sexual aggression: A replication of the millennial shift. Journal of Sex Research, 58(3), 383–395. 10.1080/00224499.2020.1733457. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brousseau, M. M., Hébert, M., & Bergeron, S. (2012). Sexual coercion within mixed-sex couples: The roles of sexual motives, revictimization, and reperpetration. Journal of Sex Research, 49(6), 533–546. 10.1080/00224499.2011.574322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Byers, E. S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program of research. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8(1–2), 7–25. 10.1300/J056v08n01_02. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Buday, S. K., & Peterson, Z. D. (2015). Men's and women's interpretation and endorsement of items measuring self-reported heterosexual aggression. Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 1042–1052. 10.1080/00224499.2014.967373. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chandler, J., Rosenzweig, C., Moss, A. J., Robinson, J., & Litman, L. (2019). Online panels in social science research: Expanding sampling methods beyond Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 51(5), 2022–2038. 10.3758/s13428-019-01273-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. DeGue, S., DiLillo, D., & Scalora, M. (2010). Are all perpetrators alike? Comparing risk factors for sexual coercion and aggression. Sexual Abuse, 22(4), 402–426. 10.1177/1079063210372140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Fan, S. (2012). Covariates. In Salkind N. J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design. Sage. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ford, J., & Soto-Marquez, J. G. (2016). Sexual assault victimization among straight, gay/lesbian, and bisexual college students. Violence and Gender, 3(2), 107–115. 10.1089/vio.2015.0030. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Chicago, IL: Aldine Books. [Google Scholar]
  10. Gronert, N. M. (2019). Law, campus policy, social movements, and sexual violence: Where do we stand in the #MeToo movement? Sociology Compass, 13(6), e12694. 10.1111/soc4.12694 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kern, S. G., & Peterson, Z. D. (2020). From freewill to force: Examining types of coercion and psychological outcomes in unwanted sex. Journal of Sex Research, 57(5), 570–584. 10.1080/00224499.2019.1671302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kimerling, R., Rellini, A., Kelly, V., Judson, P. L., & Learman, L. A. (2002). Gender differences in victim and crime characteristics of sexual assaults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(5), 526–532. 10.1177/0886260502017005003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Koss, M. P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., Ullman, S., & West, C., & White, J. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(4), 357–370. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00385.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Krahé, B., & Berger, A. (2013). Men and women as perpetrators and victims of sexual aggression in heterosexual and same-sex encounters: A study of first-year college students in Germany. Aggressive Behavior, 39(5), 391–404. 10.1002/ab.21482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Lonsway, K. A., Banyard, V. A., Berkowitz, A. D., Gidycz, C. A., Katz, J. T., Koss, M. P., Schewe, P. A., Ullman, S. E., & Edwards, D. (2009). Rape prevention and risk reduction: Review of the research literature for practitioners. National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women. https://vawnet.org/material/rape-prevention-and-risk-reduction-review-research-literature-practitioners.
  16. Lyndon, A. E., White, J. W., & Kadlec, K. M. (2007). Manipulation and force as sexual coercion tactics: Conceptual and empirical differences. Aggressive Behavior, 33(4), 291–303. 10.1002/ab.20200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Muñoz, L. C., Khan, R., & Cordwell, L. (2011). Sexually coercive tactics used by university students: A clear role for primary psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25(1), 28–40. 10.1521/pedi.2011.25.1.28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Murchison, G. R., Agénor, M., Reisner, S. L., & Watson, R. J. (2019). School restroom and locker room restrictions and sexual assault risk among transgender youth. Pediatrics, 143(6), e2018902. 10.1542/peds.2018-2902. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Peterson, Z. D. (2022). Examining the psychometric properties of the Sexual Initiation Strategies Scale (SISS): A new self-report measure of sexual aggression perpetration history. Manuscript under review. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Peterson, Z. D., Perez Trujillo, M., & Jaramillo-Sierra, A. L. (2021). Judging the legality of sexually violent tactics: a comparison between prosecuting attorneys in the United States and Colombia. Journal of Sexual Aggression. Online ahead of print. 10.1080/13552600.2021.1970833. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Peterson, Z. D., Voller, E. K., Polusny, M. A., & Murdoch, M. (2011). Prevalence and consequences of adult sexual assault of men: Review of empirical findings and state of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(1), 1–24. 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.08.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Sakaluk, J., Todd, L., Milhausen, R., & Lachowsky, N, & Undergraduate Research Group in Sexuality (URGiS) . (2014). Dominant heterosexual sexual scripts in emerging adulthood: conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Sex Research, 51(5), 516–531. 10.1080/00224499.2012.745473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Schatzel-Murphy, E. A., Harris, D. A., Knight, R. A., & Milburn, M. A. (2009). Sexual coercion in men and women: Similar behaviors, different predictors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(6), 974–986. 10.1007/s10508-009-9481-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Smeaton, G. L., Struckman-Johnson, C., Fagen, J. L., Bohn, R., & Anderson, P. B. (2018). Generation cohort differences in male and female use of tactics to gain sex from an unwilling partner. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 24(2), 181–104. 10.1080/13552600.2018.1440088. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Smith, S. G., Chen, J., Basile, K. C., Gilbert, L. K., Merrick, M. T., Patel, N., Walling, M., & Jain, A. (2017). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010–2012 State report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Google Scholar]
  26. Stephens, D. P., & Eaton, A. A. (2014). Influence of masculinity scripts on heterosexual Hispanic college men’s perceptions of female-initiated sexual coercion. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(4), 387–396. 10.1037/a0034639. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Strang, E., & Peterson, Z. D. (2020). Use of a bogus pipeline to detect men's underreporting of sexually aggressive behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(1–2), 208–232. 10.1177/0886260516681157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., & Anderson, P. B. (2003). Tactics of sexual coercion: When men and women won't take no for an answer. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 76–86. 10.1080/00224490309552168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Waldner-Haugrud, L. K. (1999). Sexual coercion in lesbian and gay relationships: A review and critique. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4(2), 139–149. 10.1016/S1359-1789(97)00054-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal, 13(4), 496–502. 10.1177/1066480705278729. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Sexual Health are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES