Dating Couples' Disagreements over the Desired Level of Sexual Intimacy

Author(s): E. Sandra Byers and Kim Lewis

Source: The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 24 (1988), pp. 15-29
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3812819 .
Accessed: 17/10/2011 10:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of
Sex Research.

http://www.jstor.org

The Journal of Sex Research

Dating
the

Vol. 24, pp. 15-29, 1988

Couples'
Level

Desired

Over

Disagreements

E. SANDRA

of

BYERS

Sexual

AND

KIM

Intimacy
LEWIS

female and 54 male college students participated in a study

Sixty-seven
of sexual disagreements
in which the man desired to engage in a higher
level of sexual activity than did the woman. Participants
kept an ongo?
record
of
dates
and
and
disagreements
ing
provided descriptive informa?
tion about some of these. We had three goals: (a) to determine how fre?
occurs in dating relationships;
(b) to
quently this type of disagreement
determine the types and frequencies of the various strategies that men
use when their partner indicates that she is unwilling to engage in a par?
of disagree?
ticular sexual activity; and (c) to describe the characteristics
ment situations and relate these to male compliance with the woman's
were reported by 47% of par?
refusal. One or more disagreements
occurred on only 7% of reported dates. In
ticipants, but disagreements
61% of the disagreement
situations, the man complied with the woman's
refusal without question. Verbal and/or physical coercion was reported
that
in 25% of the disagreement
These results suggest
situations.
it does
although sexual coercion is a part of some dating relationships,
not characterize our dating system to the degree suggested by Clark and
of the disagreement
situation and their
Lewis (1977). Characteristics
to
male
are
and
discussed.
reported
relationship
compliance

to adopt different
roles
to
initiate
are
and
activity.
expected
pur?
respect
to engage in sexual activity
women to be reluctant
sue sexual activity;
and to set firm limits on the extent of their sexual involvement
(Clark
Men and women

with

& Lewis,

in our society

to sexual

1977;

Gager

are socialized

Men

& Schurr,

1976;

LaPlante,

McCormick,

& Bran?

& Hill,

1979; Peplau, Rubin,

1977). Although
to this stereotype
conform
1978;
(Jesser,
for
women
report using all strategies
Perper & Weis, 1987), college
do
whereas
sex
more
than
men,
college
college
avoiding
frequently
men report using all strategies
for having sex more frequently
than do
nigan, 1980; McCormick,
not all sexual
interactions

E. Sandra Byers, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Psychology,

University of
New Brunswick, Fredericton. While this study was being conducted, Kim Lewis, MA,
was a graduate student in Psychology at the University of New Brunswick.
Prepara?
tion of this article was supported in part by Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Grant 410-82-0249 to Sandra Byers. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance
of Nilmini Perera in data collection and Barry Spinner for his helpful comments on an
earlier draft of this article.
Requests for reprints should be sent to E. Sandra Byers, PhD, Department of
Psychology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, N.B., Canada E3B 6E4.
15

E S. BYERS AND K. LEWIS

16

& LaPlante,
et al; McCormick,
women
(LaPlante
Brannigan
Similarly,
Peplau et al. found that, even among dating couples
for men and women, the
of sexual conduct
who held a single standard
college
1984).

men

tended

If men

in the sexual

the role of the initiator

to take

the women

whereas

tended

to exert

do routinely
adopt antagonistic
women would frequently
involvement,

and women

to sexual
respect
tion in which their

interactions,

control,

negative

with
positions
be in a situa?

level of sexual
male partners
desire a more intimate
a
studies
indicate
that
substantial
Several
they.
pro?
in?
at least one sexual
of women
report having
experienced

involvement
portion
teraction

than

1980; Koss &

(Byers,
type of disagreement
did not
&
These
Oros,
Collins,
studies,
however,
1984).
of these disagreements.
the frequency
Thus, one goal was
investigate
how frequently
this type of disagreement
occurs.
to investigate
Clark and Lewis (1977) argued that the male role of trying to extend
involving
1982; McCabe

of sexual

the level
sexual
about

this

involvement

introduces

interactions.
dating
They suggest
the desired level of sexual involvement

coercive
that

elements

into most

when

disagreements
men use any means

arise,
to "convince"
their date to engage in the
coercion,
including
Mc?
This view is shared by college
students.
sexual activity.
found that college
students
Cormick
(1979), for example,
generally

possible,
desired

in most

believe

that

engage
avoid

sexual

Wilson

in sexual

sexual

encounters

men

will

use

any

means

to

to
women will use any strategy
and
a
Byers
Using
role-play
procedure,
in
that some men did use coercive
strategies
of their sexual
be?
advances.
refusals
Further,

intercourse,

whereas

intercourse.

(1985) found
to women's

response
tween 34% and 83% of women
aggression
ment
about

at some
the

time,
desired

male sexual
report having experienced
with
a disagree?
a
date
and
usually
following
&
level of sexual
involvement
(Brickman

1977; Koss &

1979; Kanin & Parcell,
&
&
Russell
1983). How?
1985;
Howell,
Oros, 1982; Mynatt
Allgeier,
strate?
whether
coercive
have not considered
ever, these researchers
to resolve
behaviors
are used more frequently
gies or compliant
Briere,

1984;

Byers

& Eastman,

the types and

Thus, a second goal was to investigate
in?
men
their
of
when
of
the
various
partner
responses
frequencies
in a particular
to engage
sexual activity.
dicates
unwillingness
disagreements.

A third

information
about disagree?
goal was to provide descriptive
sexual
whether
Factors
as
situations.
suggested
mediating
in
coercion
between
sexual
and/or
disagreements
dating couples result
ment

(Clark & Lewis,

aggression
1969; Korman & Leslie, 1982; Price

sexual

1982; Kanin,
1977; Giles & Byers,
& Byers, 1983) include the definite-

DESIRED LEVEL OF SEXUAL INTIMACY

ness

of the woman's

coitally
romantic

refusal,

was
the disputed
sexual activity
in the man, the man's
interest
of the dating rela?
and the duration

whether

the woman's

directed,

17

romantic

in the woman,
between
these factors
data on the relationship
We obtained
tionship.
be?
refusal.
The relationship
with the woman's
and men's compliance
was also explored.
and subject characteristics
tween men's compliance
interest

Method
Subjects
were 132 (74 women and 58 men) unmarried
students
Participants
in Introductory
enrolled
who
for
volunteered
a
Psychology
study of
in sexual
communication
situations.
received
course
dating
They
credit.

Two

withdrew
from the study after the procedures
In
11
addition,
(7 men and 4 women) did
explained.
participants
not complete
all 4 weeks
of the study
and were excluded
from the
in
from
17-24
with
the
women
analyses.
age
years,
Participants
ranged
=
somewhat
than
the
men
and
18.7
(M
20.3, respective?
being
younger
(68%) or
ly), ?(119) = 6.21, p < .001. Most grew up in New Brunswick
students

were

elsewhere
careers

in Canada
than

were in their
active

were

first year),

daters

of the

(26%). The women

the men

76%

were earlier
of the women

(e.g.,
?(77) = 5.17, p < .001. Most
of six dates during the month

(median
and moderately

in their university
and 33% of men
were
participants
to
the
start
prior

score on
(median
sexually
experienced
=
15; see below). Male and female par?
Inventory
did not differ on any of the other background
characteristics.

study)
the Sexual Behavior
ticipants
Measures

of participants'
various
dating
aspects
Age, year in university,
a
information
were collected
and other demographic
using
history,
for
the
self-administered
Questionnaire
designed
present
Background
the Sexual
Behavior
also completed
Inventory
study.1
Participants
1968a, 1968b).
(SBI) (Bentler,
versions
Male and female

of the

Situation
Questionnaire
in
for use
the present
and pretested
(SSQ) were designed
study. A few
on only one version
of the questionnaire,
were represented
questions
in a disagreement
different
men's
and
women's
perspectives
reflecting
situation.
had been
specific

Sexual

indicated
at the end of each day whether
they
Participants
on a date, defined as any social situation
they were in with a
person

of the

opposite

sex.

Participants

who

had been

*A copy of this and other questionnaires are available from the first author.

on a

E. S. BYERS AND K. LEWIS

18

date also indicated

hands

holding
intimate
reduce

whether

to intercourse)

and whether

sexual

(from
activity
the man had desired a more

In order to
than did the woman.
activity
of questionnaires
and since pilot data indicated
in a
more than one disagreement
experienced

of sexual

level

number

the

the date had involved

that few participants

of the questionnaire
the remainder
week, participants
completed
only
if they had experienced
this type of disagreement
for the first time
on the type of sexual ac?
that week. Participants
information
provided
from a hierarchical
the disagreement
tivity prior to and constituting
to
their relationship
list of 11 sexual activities
intercourse),
(hugging
of previous
of their own and
with their date (number
dates, ratings
of
their date's romantic
and the verbal and nonverbal
interest),
aspects
to
the
man
said
did
indicate
interaction
and/or
the disagreement
(what
in the unwanted
the woman's
sexual activities;
his desire to engage
to

response
woman's
and

their

evaluated

these

second
date's
their

the

advances;
response.)
romantic

own and/or

man's

In addition,
interest
their

date's

subsequent

behavior;
rated

their

participants
after
the disagreement

the
own
and

responses.

on the SSQ were multiple

Most of the questions
choice. However,
their activities
described
on the date and the couple's
participants
location
used to score the SSQ
during the disagreement.
Categories
data

and descriptions
can be found in Tables 2 and 3.
of their own and their date's behavior
dur?
Participants'
descriptions
the
were
coded
two
trained
raters.
Interrater
ing
disagreement
by
for each rating scale by dividing
was calculated
the number
agreement
of exact

of responses.
agreements
by the total number
Agreement
=
to
from
71%
100%
A
(M
85%), indicating
ranged
good reliability.
third judge rated all responses
on which the two raters disagreed.
were resolved
Disagreements
by using the rating assigned
by two of
the three raters. The reliability
of the two definiteness
and validity
scales
and the compliance
in previous
scale has been established
research
& Wilson,
Giles
& Byers,
1985;
1982).
Further,
(Byers
? 5.2 on a
were
confident
(M
very
respondents
6-point rating scale) of
of their responses.
the accuracy
Procedure
Prior
seen

to receiving

individually.
formed
consent

the SSQ to complete

at home, participants
were
of the study
in?
the nature
was explained,

After

was
and
the
obtained,
participants
completed
and the SBI.
were then
Questionnaire
Background
Participants
trained to complete
the SSQ. To do this, participants
were presented
with a fictitious
written
scene and asked to complete
the SSQ using

DESIRED LEVEL OF SEXUAL INTIMACY

the information
back

provided

in the

scene.

19

were given
Participants
SSQ and given a second

on their

feed?

of the practice
completion
prac?
tice scene if they had not initially
met training
criteria.
Participants
were then given four copies of the SSQ, each dated for 1 of the 4 weeks,
and instructed
to complete
these questionnaires
at home on a daily
basis.

returned
a completed,
at
Participants
anonymous
questionnaire
the end of each of the 4 weeks. Those who failed to return the question?
on the indicated

naire

date

were

contacted

by telephone.

Results
and female

Male

participants'
responses
Men and women
differed

t tests.
using
of the
definiteness
correlations
for

have

nonverbal

been provided

purposes.
in instances
when

during

and

separately
reported.
related

sex are reported.

Experiences

on an average
of 10.5 days (called "dates"
Of these dates, 73% involved
some form of
in which the man desired to engage in a
Disagreements

the 4 weeks.

activity.
intimate

the total

data

had dated

Participants
below)
sexual

for the other

any trends

and Sexual

Dating

However,
response.
for the men and the women

are
Only significant
findings
two variables
were significantly

informational

However,
for one sex only,

more

woman's

on the SSQ were compared

on only one question:
the

dates

sexual

than did the woman constituted

activity
7% of
or 10% of the dates on which there was some sexual ac?

The

of dating
and sexual
average
are
frequency
experiences
in Table 1. Men and women who reported
reported
more dates were
also more likely to report more dates with sexual
r = .88 and r
activity,
=
<
.89, p
.001,
more
respectively.
Participants
experienced
=
if they had dated more frequently
disagreements
.24
for
the
men
(r
and r = .30 for the women, p < .05) and if
they had more dates involv?
ing sexual activity
(r = .30 for the men and r = .25 for the women, p <
tivity.

.05).
Table 1
Mean Frequency of Dating and Sexual Activity Over 4-Week Period

Dates
Dates with sex
Disagreements
Note. Participants could report a maximum of one date and one disagreement per day.
Since these data include multiple
it
reportings
by some individuals,
is also important

to indicate

how many

different

individuals

these

data

20

E. S. BYERS AND K. LEWIS

did not report any dates. An addi?

Only 7% of participants
represent.
tional 7% had dated during the period of the study but indicated
that
A further 39% had been
none of the dates involved
any sexual activity.
involved

in a sexual
about

disagreement
47% of respondents

but not one in which there was a

dating situation
the desired
level of sexual
involvement.
Of the

who reported
one or more disagreement,
the ma?
one (64%) or two (26%) disagreements.
were performed
to predict
number of
analyses
regression
Multiple
from background
infor?
dates and number of disagreement
experiences

jority

reported

only

number of steady dates, number

commitment,
age, religious
in
the
occasions
and sexual
month,
dating
past
experience.
backward
was used in which variables
which
procedure
stepwise
mation:

of
A
do

not significantly
contribute
to the model are removed
one at a time. An
of
For both men
level
.055
was
used
as
a
criterion
for
removal.
alpha
number of dates in the month before the study emerged as
factor predicting
of dates
number
the
only significant
during
=
=
r
r
<
<
.01
and
.62
.49, p
.001, respectively.
study,
p
Participants
who dated more frequently
more dates during the study.
reported
for predicting
one factor
models
also emerged
the
Significant
Men with more sexual experience
number of disagreements.
reported
r = .32, p < .05, as did women who had dated
more disagreements,
more in the month prior to the study, r = .26, p < .05.
and women,
the

Characteristics

of the Disagreement

The following

Situation

results

refer to participants
who reported one or more
=
31
25
women
and
who
men). For participants
disagreements
only (n
more than
one disagreement,
from the first
reported
only data
were analyzed
in order to avoid the possibility
that a few
disagreement
with many disagreements
subjects
might bias
of the disagreement
Characteristics
situation
2. Most of the disagreement
situations
involved
and

who

the results.
are presented
couples with

in Table

a dating
other.
Par?

were romantically
in each
interested
of
their
own and their dates romantic
interest
were
ratings
ticipants'
r = .60 and .76, p < .01, for the men and the women,
highly correlated,
the women but not the men rated their dates as
However,
respectively.
history

in them than they were in their dates,

more interested
significantly
=
<
.001. Coitus was the behavior
about most
?(29)
3.55, p
disagreed
(32.1%), followed by breast play (23.2%). Most participants
frequently
in consensual
im?
sexual activities
(94.6%) reported
having
engaged
A substantial
(60%) of
proportion
mediately
prior to the disagreement.
the men reported having engaged
in the sexual activity
involved
in the

DESIRED

disagreement

with

their

21

LEVEL OF SEXUAL INTIMACY

current

partner

on a previous

occasion.'

Table 2
Characteristics of Disagreement Situations

(Continued on next page)

2This question was accidentally omitted from the female version of SSQ.

22

E. S. BYERS AND K. LEWIS

Table 2?continued
Characteristics of Disagreement Situations

aRespondents checked all categories that applied.

Men's

and

Men's

Women's

Behavior

initiation

of

sexual

the

in the Disagreement

sexual

Most
activity.
whether
with
nonverbally

Interaction
men

initiated

the

or without

(23.4%)
activity
(69.6%) a verbal request.
Women's
to the man's
in?
advances.
Few participants
responses
dicated that the woman went along with the unwanted
advances
even
that neither
(12% of the men and 3.2% of the women reported
initially
disputed

the woman's

nor nonverbal

verbal

that

the woman

response
indicated

a refusal).
her nonconsent

was

Most
both

par?
ver?

ticipants
reported
(40% of the men and 71.0% of the women).
bally and nonverbally,
The most frequent verbal response
"No" (37.5%),
was an unqualified
also
a
verbal
refusal in
(30.4%)
although
many participants
reported
the woman

which
another

indicated

or place (Table
involved
the woman
time

quently
his hand)

that

the activity
at
might be acceptable
most fre?
3). Physical
responses
reported
her date's advance
blocking
(e.g., moving

Verbal
and nonverbal
definiteness
(46.4%).
correlated
with each other for either the

were

not

men or the
significantly
the men described
nonverbal
that were
women. On average,
responses
=
less definite
than those described
women
1.8
and 2.3
the
(M's
by
=
-2.66, p < .01.
?(54)
respectively),
In responding
Men's compliance
with women's
to women's
refusals.
the largest
number of men (60.7%) unquestioningly
refusals,
stopped
A number
their advances,
their
many also apologizing.
questioned
of men used verbally
date's refusal (16.1%). A small proportion
coer?
cive
the

strategies

such
sexual

disputed
An additional

(5.4%).

continued
physically
Immediate
outcome

as attempting
activity
10.7%

to persuade
their date to engage in
or verbally
anger
expressing
of participants
indicated
that the man
(7.1%)

the unwanted
of disagreement.

sexual

advances.

In two thirds

of the situations,

DESIRED LEVEL OF SEXUAL INTIMACY

23

Table 3
Men's and Women's Behavior During Disagreement
Behavior
Men's initial advances
Verbal
No verbal response
Indirect request for sexual activity
Clear request for sexual activity
Nonverbal
No physical response
Initiated desired sexual activity
Women's responses to unwanted advances
Verbal
No verbal refusal
Refusal implying advances might be
accepted at some other time or place
Unqualified refusal
Refusal with anger or threat that date
leave
Nonverbal
No physical refusal
Blocked or did not perform sexual activity
Moved away or pushed man away
Got up or slapped

% Women
(n = 31)

% Men
(n = 25)

% Total
{n = 56)

67.7
16.1
16.1

72.0
4.0
24.0

69.6
10.7
19.6

9.7
90.3

4.0
96.0

7.1
92.9

22.6

36.0

28.6

Men's compliance with refusal

Stopped without questioning
Stopped and asked why or when
Stopped and attempted to persuade
Stopped and expressed displeasure or anger
Continued unwanted advances
Immediate outcome of disagreement
Disagreement resolved
Stopped all sexual activity
Continued acceptable sexual activity
Disagreement not resolved
Woman reiterated refusal
Woman made more definite refusal
the

woman's

which

initial

the women

refusal

gave
advances

ended

a second

the

refusal

in
Situations
disagreement.
were those in which the men

her reasons
or
(31.3%),
(50%), questioned
her to continue
17.1% of
tried to persuade
(18.8%).
Additionally,
were
the
man's
advances
that
again
repeated
reported
respondents
later on the same date.
continued

their

Variables

Related

to Men's

Compliance

analyses
Stepwise
regression
in the disagreement
situation.

were used
Caution

to predict men's compliance

be taken in generalizing

should

E. S. BYERS AND K. LEWIS

24

from

these

results,

however,

since

the beta

weights

may

be unstable

due to small

sample sizes.
of the background
Regression
number of steady dates, number

variables
of dates

commitment,
(age, religious
in the last month, sexual ex?

perience) on compliance
yielded two 1-factor models. Women who were
more frequent
daters reported
more compliant
from their
responses
=
tended to be
.45, p < .05. Men who were more compliant
dates, r
r = Al p <.05.
more sexually
experienced,
Six variables
regressed
and the

measuring
aspects
on the men's compliance:

man's

interest

romantic

of the disagreement
dating
in the

situation

were

the woman's
involvement,
whether
the sexual

other,

behavior

was noncoitally
or coitally
and the woman's
verbal
directed,
and nonverbal
definiteness.
For the men's data, the only significant
was that more compliant
tended to follow less
relationship
responses
= -.57,
r
definite
verbal responses
the
women,
given by
p < .01. A
3-factor model emerged
for the women's
of the
significant
description
R = -.55, F(3, 27) = 3.96, p = .05. More compliant
men's compliance,
with women who were less romantically
in?
were associated
responses
=
in their dates {(3
in
terested
-.52), had dated the man more regularly
the past (j3 = .66), and gave more definite
nonverbal
(/3 =
responses
.46).
Reaction

to the Disagreement

a decrease
in
Only 16% of the men and 9.9% of the women reported
the man's romantic
interest
after the disagreement;
20% of the men
and 23.4% of the women reported
a decrease
in the woman's
romantic
interest.

Men and women who reported

less compliant
male responses
to report decreased
romantic
interest
after the disagreement
on
the part of both the man (r = .49 for the men and r = .36 for the
women, p < .05) and the women (r = .37, p < .10 for the men and r =
.62, p < .001 for the women.)
tended

Most women were satisfied

(rated on a 5-point scale) with both their
own and their date's responses
(M = 4.16, SD
during the disagreement
= .90 and M = 3.65, SD =
The men rated
1.38, respectively).
themselves
sure
and moderately
(on a 6-point scale) between
slightly
sure that the woman did not want to engage in the sexual activity
with
them, M = 4.48, SD 1.12.
The men's
ual

behavior

definiteness
tion

with

However,

that their date did not wish to engage in the sex?

certainty
was not related
to either her nonverbal
or her verbal
nor to the degree of his compliance.
The women's
satisfac?
their own response
was not related
to its definiteness.

women

who

described

their

date

as more

compliant

were

DESIRED LEVEL OF SEXUAL INTIMACY

their

with

satisfied

more

date's

25

r = .81, p < .001.

responses,
Discussion

of college
students'
day to day
and coercion
that has not been

results

a description
provide
of
sexual
disagreements
experiences
from retrospective
available
research.
These

about

reported
the past
1979; Kanin

whether

in

gression
Eastman,

indicate

data

present

not

are

they

misleading

& Parcell,
that

from

sexuality
had ever

1977;

coercive

(e.g.,
Koss

conclusions

below,

in which

research

sexual

experienced

ag?
&
Byers
since the

1980;

Byers,
& Oros,

1982),
are not a "regular"

disagreements

of sexual

component
Caution
is

of coercive

the normativeness

participants

As discussed

dating interactions.
be taken in generalizing

should
known

whether

the

experiences

from
of

these

results.

college

First, it
students
are

to other

the self-monitoring
Second,
groups.
although
used minimizes
bias due to faulty memory
(Graham & Lilly,
technique
de?
1984), the data may be affected
by socially
desirability,
perceived

generalizable

mand
due

to the

small

sample
of the results

some

tions,

to being in the study.

reactivity
size in analyses
of the disagreement
may be unstable.

and/or

characteristics,

about

Disagreements

Sexual

in which

Disagreements
than the
timacy

Activity

the man desired

woman

were

found

did not involve

dates

(LaPlante
and with

1977)

having experienced
volvement
(Byers,
& Collins,
do not support

a disagreement
1980;

data

depictions

of sexual

since

level

of men as continually
(Clark & Lewis,
1977;

intimacy
indicated
participants

report
of sexual in?

that

in most

1982;
these

to extend

trying
Gager & Schurr,
sexual
interactions

did not disagree

about the desired level of sexual
This
in
be
because
women use a variety
of procep?
intimacy.
may
part
tive strategies
to indicate
that they would be receptive
to their date's
sexual
advances
& Weis,
and thus only men who
1987),
(Perper
they

and their

the desired

& Eastman,
1979; Koss & Oros,
& Allgeier,
1985). However,
Mynatt

1984;

1976),

about

situa?
et al.,

Byers

McCabe

the limits

a higher level of sexual in?

to be common,
most
although
This is consistent
with data that

a disagreement.
adversarial
in sexual
report adopting
positions
et al., 1980; McCormick
et al., 1984; Peplau
the finding
that a large proportion
of women

men and women

tions

Finally,
situa?

misread

date

or choose

to ignore

these

signals

initiate

unwanted

sexual

ad?

vances.
The results
more

likely

do suggest
that some disagreements
occur. Conflict was
for women who were more active daters and men who had

E. S. BYERS AND K. LEWIS

26

sexual

and Allgeier
(1985) found
Similarly,
Mynatt
experience.
who were more sexually
active were more likely to report
most of the disagreements
been sexually
coerced.
However,
having
in which the man was trying
to extend
were not instances
sexual
more

the women

Instead

different
desires
for sexual
ac?
represent
in
with
a
with
whom
were
engaged
they
partner
previously
This type of communication
interested.
would normally
romantically
in most dating relationships
and would also be essential
be expected
boundaries.

they

tivities

for maintaining
that
reported
advances.
sexual
with

a good relationship.
many men at least

partner.

with this,

the respondent
Only these latter

had not previously

instances
may have

male and female sexual interactions

depicting
& Lewis, 1977; Gager & Schurr, 1976).

theories
(Clark

The Disagreement
In most

Jesser

rebuff women's
occasionally
of disagreements
did involve
a dispute

A minority
behavior
that

that

Consistent

(1978)
sexual
over

experienced
a bearing on
as adversarial

Situation

instances

in the

the

occurred
disagreement
in which the two participants

context

of a

in?
were romantically
was in?
the unwanted
sexual activity
Usually,
to
in the position
of having
the woman
putting
if she was not interested.
This is consistent
with

dating relationship
in each other.
terested
itiated

nonverbally,
the advances

rebuff

students'
reports
college
methods
to give consent
that the initiation
gesting
refusal

proportions

equivalent
ous verbal

to

is also

to

use nonverbal
most commonly
intercourse
1980), sug?
(Byers,
nonverbal.
usually

women
sexual

a variety

described

Participants
their
dicate

that

engage
of the men

of strategies
that women
the sexual
activity.

in

and the women

described

used

to in?

Although
the vari?

more definite
refusals
women
physical
reported
to
were responding
It may be that the women
in describing
more definite
nonver?
characteristics
demand
perceived
the
that some men failed to perceive
It is also possible
bal refusals.
than

did

nonverbal
curately
Even
about
tion
typed

refusals,

the

men.

given by their dates and/or to report them ac?

response
in order to justify
their subsequent
persistence.
in a disagreement
of dates that resulted
among the minority

sexual
rather
view

use of coercive
strategies
by men was the excep?
activity,
the stereo?
than the rule. Thus, these data do not support
about the desired level of sexual
that when disagreements

to
for men is to use any strategy
behavior
do arise, normative
activity
in the disputed
behavior
to engage
the woman
"convince"
(Clark &
et al., 1980; McCormick,
Lewis, 1977; Gager & Schurr, 1976; LaPlante
1979).

Rather,

it is more typical

of men to accept

the woman's

decision.

DESIRED

Some

usually
tionnaire,

In more than one third of the

strategies.
the woman
felt it necessary
to reiterate
her refusal,
Due
to
the
of
a more definite
the ques?
strategy.
design

using
it is not known

to say "no"
were forced to continue
forced

that

their will. However,

it does
sex against
to the rape myth
of men subscribe

percentage
"no" means "yes"
Male

Predicting
If women

daters

reported

more

frequently

it is impor?
of sexual aggression,
being victims
with women's
to men's
related
compliance
Women
who were more frequent
sexual
advances.
men. It may be that women who date
more compliant
factors

develop

more

responses.

for stopping
un?
strategies
was also related to com?
definiteness

effective

since

more com?
sexually
reported
experienced
these men also reported a larger number of
However,
are
It may be that men with more sexual experience

disagreements.
more likely to initiate
disagreements.

1980).

Compliance

advances,
especially
Men who were more

pliance.

(Burt,

appear
that a

are to avoid

to identify
of their
refusals
tant

wanted

in how many of these situations

the woman
of
the women
than twice or whether
any

more

a small

woman's

pliant

27

men did use coercive

disagreements,

was

LEVEL OF SEXUAL INTIMACY

sexual

However,

they

activities,
resulting
are also more likely

in more
to accept

frequent
a refusal.

tended
to the women's
responses
reports, more compliant
According
who were less
refusals
nonverbal
to follow more definite
by women
in
him
dated
had
and
in
date
their
interested
regularly
romantically
in
the past. Thus a woman may be at greater risk for sexual aggression
in
interested
of dating and when she is romantically
the early stages
as Kanin (1969)
she reacts less strongly,
because
her date, perhaps
that were
nonverbal
the women reported
found. However,
responses
definite

tions

were inaccurate,

and

descrip?
by the men. If the women's
reported
definiteness
nonverbal
between
the relationship
about
expectations
only women's
may reflect

those

than

more

male

compliance
are effective
actions

advances.
unwanted
at stopping
is not clear,
on male comphance
behavior
The impact of women's
verbal
definite
less
more compliance
since the men reported
following
this scale was
This may be because
from the women.
responses
in
sexual
definiteness
measure
to
occurring
disagreements
developed
what

whereas most of the

stages of dating and sexual relationships,
in
the past. It may be
behavior
in the disputed
had engaged
couples
that the behavior
that for these couples a response
might be
indicating
low in
as
scored
was
in
which
at
future
a
time,
point
acceptable
at early

definiteness,
that time.

was

most

effective

at stopping

the

man's

advances

at

E. S. BYERS AND K. LEWIS

28

was not related

compliance
not
behavior
was coitally
directed,
Male

a certain

beyond
right

to say "no"

1982).
Women
terested

whose
in them.

to whether

the

disputed
contention

sexual

become

less in?

the
that
supporting
of intimacy,
women are seen as forfeiting
their
(Burt, 1980; Clark & Lewis, 1977; Korman & Leslie,

level

dates

did not take

"no" for an answer

the men who used

more coercive

Similarly,
strategies
their date as becoming
less romantically
likely to perceive
in them after the disagreement.
interested
This suggests
that these
men were aware that the use of coercive
is
not
to
strategies
acceptable
wnmpn
References
were

more

P. M. (1968a). Heterosexual behavior assessment?I.

Males. Behavior
Bentler,
Research and Therapy, 6, 21-25.
P. M. (1968b). Heterosexual behavior assessment?II.
Females. Behavior
Bentler,
Research and Therapy, 6, 27-30.
Brickman, J., & Briere, J. (1984). Incidence of rape and sexual assault in an urban
Canadian population. International Journal of Womens Studies, 7, 195-206.
Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.
Byers, E. S. (1980). Female communication of consent and nonconsent to sexual inter?
course. Journal of the New Brunswick Psychological Association, 5, 12-18.
Byers, E. S., & Eastman, M. A. (1979, June). Characteristics of unreported sexual
assaults among college women. Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian
Psychological Association, Quebec City, Quebec.
Byers, E. S., & Wilson, P. (1985). Accuracy of women's expectations regarding men's
responses to refusals of sexual advances in dating situations. International Journal
of Women's Studies, 4, 376-387.
Clark, L., & Lewis, D. (1977). Rape: The price of coercive sexuality. Toronto: The
Woman's Press.
Gager, N., & SCHURR,C. (1976). Sexual assault: Confronting rape in America. New
York: Grosset and Dunlap.
Giles, B., & Byers, E. S. (1982, June). Female responses to unwanted sexual advances.
Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Mon?
treal.
Graham, J. R., & Lilly, R. S. (1984). Psychological Testing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Jesser, C. J. (1978). Male responses to direct verbal sexual initiatives of females. The
Journal of Sex Research, 14, 118-128.
Kanin, E. J. (1969). Selected dyadic aspects of male sexual aggression. The Journal of
Sex Research, 6, 12-28.
Kanin, E. J., & Parcell, S. (1977). Sexual aggression: A second look at the offended
female. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 6, 67-76.
Korman, S., & Leslie, G. (1982). The relationship of feminist ideology and date expense sharing to perceptions of sexual aggression in dating. The Journal of Sex
Research, 18, 114-129.
Koss, P., & Oros, C. (1982). Sexual Experiences Survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 50, 455-457.

DESIRED LEVEL OF SEXUAL INTIMACY

29

M. N., McCormick, N., & Brannigan, G. G. (1980). Living the sexual

LaPlante,
script: College students' views of influence in sexual encounters. The Journal of Sex
Research, 6, 338-355.
McCabe, M. P., & Collins, J. K. (1984). Measurement of depth of desired and experi?
enced sexual involvement at different stages of dating. The Journal of Sex
Research, 20, 377-390.
McCormick, N. B. (1979). Come-ons and put-offs: Unmarried students' strategies for
having and avoiding sexual intercourse. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4,
195-211.
McCormick, N. B., Brannigan, G. G., & Laplante, M. N. (1984). Social desirability
in the bedroom: Role of approval motivation in sexual relationships. Sex Roles, 11,
303-314.
E. R. (1985, June). Sexual coercion: Reported effects of
Mynatt, C. A., & Allgeier,
acquaintances and social contact. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for
the Scientific Study of Sex, Midcontinent Region, Chicago, IL.
Peplau, L. A., Rubin, Z., & Hill, C. T. (1977). Sexual intimacy in dating relation?
ships. Journal of Social Issues, 33{2), 86-109.
Perper, T., & Weis, D. L. (1987). Proceptive and rejective strategies of U.S. and
Canadian college women. The Journal of Sex Research, 23, 455-480.
Price, D., & Byers, E. S. (1983, June). Effectiveness of women's refusals of sexual
advances in high and low intimacy situations. Paper presented at the meeting of
the Canadian Psychological Association, Winnipeg, Ontario.
Russell, D. E. H., & Howell, N. (1983). The prevalence of rape in the United States
revisited. Signs, 8, 688-695.
Accepted for publication May 27, 1986