Abstract
The current study examines men’s and women’s perceptions of both men’s and women’s use of token resistance in heterosexual relationships. Three hundred and forty (n = 340) individuals (148 men and 191 women) with an average age of 21.31 years (SD = 4.11) served as participants in an online study at a large, southwestern university. Results indicate that men perceive both men and women as using token resistance more than women do. Specifically, when examining a traditional sexual script in which the man is the sexually proactive partner and the woman is perceived as exercising token resistance, men believe that women engage in token resistance more than women do. In the scenario in which the woman is the sexually proactive partner and the man is the token resistant party, men perceive men using token resistance more than women do. Within gender, men perceive men using token resistance more than women do. Findings are discussed within the context of sexual script theory and the traditional sexual script.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist, 36, 715–729.
Byers, E. S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program of research. In E. S. Byers & L. F. Sullivan (Eds.), Sexual coercion in dating relationships (pp. 7–26). New York, NY: Haworth Press.
Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2002). Sexual coercion and resistance. In M. Allen, R. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, & N. Burrell (Eds.), Interpersonal communication: Advances in meta-analysis (pp. 315–343). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2015). An examination of gender of aggressor and target (un)wanted sex and nonconsent on perceptions of sexual (un)wantedness, justifiability and consent. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 12, 280–289. doi:10.1007/s13178-015-0193-x.
Emmers-Sommer, T. M., Farrell, J., Gentry, A., Stevens, S., Eckstein, J., Battocletti, J., et al. (2010). First date sexual expectations, sexual- and gender-related attitudes: The effects of who asked, who paid, date location, and gender. Communication Studies, 61(3), 339–355.
Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., & Afifi, W. A. (2013). Close encounters: Communication in relationships (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hynie, M., Lydon, J. E., Coté, S., & Wiener, S. (1998). Relational sexual scripts and women’s condom use: The importance of internalized norms. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 370–380.
Krahé, B., Scheinberger-Olwig, R., & Kolpin, S. (2000). Ambiguous communication of sexual intention as a risk marker of sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 42, 313–337.
Metts, S., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1996). Sexual communication in interpersonal contexts: A script-based approach. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 49–91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mills, C. S., & Granoff, B. J. (1992). Date and acquaintance rape among a sample of college students. Journal of the National Association of Social Workers, 37, 504–509.
Mongeau, P. A., & Carey, C. M. (1996). Who’s wooing whom II?: An experimental investigation of date-initiation and expectancy violation. Western Journal of Communication, 60, 195–213.
Motley, M. T., & Reeder, H. M. (1995). Unwanted escalation of sexual intimacy: Male and female perceptions of connotations and relational consequences of resistance messages. Communication Monographs, 62, 356–382.
Muehlenhard, C. L. (2011). Examining stereotypes about token resistance to sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 676–683. doi:10.1177/0361684311426689.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Hollabaugh, L. C. (1988). Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women’s token resistance to sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 872–879. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.872.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & McCoy, M. L. (1991). Double standard/double bind: The sexual double standard and women's communication about sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 447–461.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Rodgers, C. S. (1998). Token resistance to sex: New perceptions on an old stereotype. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 443–463. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00167.x.
Muehlenhard, C. L., Friedman, D. E., & Thomas, C. M. (1985). Is date rape justifiable? The effects of dating activity, who initiated, who paid, and men’s attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 297–310.
O’Sullivan, L. F., & Allgeier, E. R. (1994). Disassembling a stereotype: Gender differences in the use of token resistance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1035–1055.
Osman, S. L. (1998). The token resistance to sex scale. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Shreer & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 567–568). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Osman, S. L. (2003). Predicting men’s rape perceptions based on the belief that “no” really means “yes”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 683–692.
Peterson, Z. D., & Muehlenhard, C. L. (2007). Conceptualizing the “wantedness” of women’s consensual and nonconsensual sexual experiences: Implications for how women label their experiences with rape. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 72–88.
Shotland, R. L., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Women’s “token resistance” and compliant sexual behaviors are related to uncertain sexual intentions and rape. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 226–236.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1984). Sexual scripts. Society, 22, 53–60.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1987). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 97–120.
Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (2003). Sexual scripts: Origins, influences and changes. Qualitative Sociology, 26, 491–497.
Sprecher, S., Hatfield, E., Cortese, A., Potapova, E., & Levitskaya, A. (1994). Token resistance to sexual intercourse and consent to unwanted sexual intercourse: College students’ dating experiences in three countries. The Journal of Sex Research, 21, 125–132.
Wiederman, M. W. (2005). The gendered nature of sexual scripts. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 13, 496–502.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author is not aware of any conflict of interest involving this work.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Emmers-Sommer, T.M. Do Men and Women Differ in their Perceptions of Women’s and Men’s Saying “No” When They Mean “Yes” to Sex?: An Examination Between and Within Gender. Sexuality & Culture 20, 373–385 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-015-9330-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-015-9330-1