Lecture 9 Flashcards
Mellins et al: asked people about types of unwanted non consensual sexual assault and reported frequencies and methods
experiences of sexual coercion are more common among female students (28%) and gender non conforming students (38%)
it is more common to experience sexualized touching than penetrative (or attempted) assault
most common tactic is taking advantage while victim is incapacitated, then verbal tactics
females more likely to be victims of coercion via physical force
study on sexual coercion risk and protective factors between the genders
race: asians females less at risk, but no significant effect for males
difficulty paying for necessities: females increased risk, males no effect
LGBT status: bisexual females more risk, gay men more risk
Relationship context: females and males more at risk during hook ups
frat/sorority: females and males both at risk
risk drinking: females and males both at risk
Marcantonio et al: sexual refusal strategies among college students
3 types of refusal strategies: direct non verbal, indirect verbal, direct verbal
women more likely to use all strategies, especially indirect non verbal
risk factors for sexual assault
prior mental health issues
avoidance coping strategies
perceived life threat of the assault
less social support from others
rape culture/myths
Clark and Hatfield: interest in casual sex among college youth
big difference in who is accepting a request for sexual activity based on the gender of the requestor
Conley: interest in casual sex among college youth
when participants asked if they recieved an offer of casual sex, 75% of men accepted and 40% women accepted
men who make offers for casual sex seen as less sexually skilled, faithful, and warm. More likely to be seen as dangerous and have STD
According to Conley’s study, what are 2 predictors of accepting casual sex offers
thinking the proposer will have good sex skills
thinking they are unlikely to get STD
4 types of casual sexual relationships
one night stand (dont know eachother)
booty call (know eachother, usually intoxicated, have sex occasionally)
fuck buddy (know eachother, engage in sex everytime they hangout)
friends w benefits (dont always engage in sex)
Vrangalova (1) hooking up and well being: looked at diff forms of hooking up and relationship type
found no clear association with mental health and diff hook up behaviours
hooking up was linked to:
- anxiety and life satisfaction
- negative impact on mens mental health
- 1/2 the time it was associated w better mental health and the other 1/2 the time poorer mental health
self determination theory
impact of an event on well being depends on degree of autonomy one has when experiencing the event
how do people with high autonomy/ low non autonomy fit into self determination theory
when they engage in hooking up, it is associated with more positive emotional outcomes because they engage in behaviour out of intrinsic motivation
how do people with low autonomy / high non autonomy fit into self determination theory?
when they hook up, it is associated with more negative emotional outcomes because they engage due to extrinsic factors (pressure)
Online dating study found…
younger women on dating apps experience more negative interactions
online dating is more common of younger LGBT adults
Vrangalova (2): looked at relationship between experiencing one or more hook ups over a 3 month span and the changes in mental health
found that mental health changes are moderated by level of autonomy when engaging in hook up behaviours
this supports the self determination theory!
what % of homeless youth are LGBTQ?
40%
