Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reciprocity, Partner Pressure, and Emotional Labor: Women Discuss Negotiations Around Oral and Anal Sex

Sexuality & Culture volume 25, pages 217–234 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Tensions between emotional labor, agency, entitlement, and coercion all underlie women’s ability or inability to negotiate, consent to, and refuse oral and anal sex. In this study, we analyzed semi-structured interviews with twenty women from a diverse 2014 community sample collected in a large Southwestern U.S. city in order to examine the context around women’s negotiations of oral and anal sex, particularly how, when, why, and with whom they engage in, and refuse, such activities. There were three themes in how women negotiated oral and anal sex with their partner(s): (1) not expecting sexual reciprocity; (2) partner pressure; and (3) emotional labor. Implications for how women negotiate sex, and what meanings they bring to these negotiations, are explored. Women’s beliefs about (men’s) sexual entitlement and cultural expectations for non-vaginal sex further complicate women’s negotiations of oral and anal sex as well as their ability to enthusiastically consent to such activities. Clinical practice implications and the importance of clinicians both broadening definitions of sex and openly discussing women’s entitlement to refuse sex are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Backstrom, L., Armstrong, E. A., & Puentes, J. (2012). Women’s negotiations of cunnilingus in college hookups and relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 49(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basile, K. C. (1999). Rape by acquiescence: The ways in which women “give in” to unwanted sex with their husbands. Violence Against Women, 5(9), 1036–1058.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bay-Cheng, L. Y., & Eliseo-Arras, R. K. (2008). The making of unwanted sex: Gendered and neoliberal norms in college women’s unwanted sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 45(4), 386–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bay-Cheng, L. Y., & Fava, N. M. (2011). Young women’s experiences and perceptions of cunnilingus during adolescence. Journal of Sex Research, 48(6), 531–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beres, M. A., Senn, C. Y., & McCaw, J. (2014). Navigating ambivalence: How heterosexual young adults make sense of desire differences. Journal of Sex Research, 51(7), 765–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bersamin, M. M., Fisher, D. A., Walker, S., Hill, D. L., & Grube, J. W. (2007). Defining virginity and abstinence: Adolescents’ interpretations of sexual behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(2), 182–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billy, J. O. G., Grady, W. R., & Sill, M. E. (2009). Sexual risk-taking among adult dating couples in the United States. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 41(2), 74–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., Gavey, N., & McPhillips, K. (2003). The “fair deal”? Unpacking accounts of reciprocity in heterosex. Sexualities, 6(2), 237–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, A. J., Wosnitzer, R., Scharrer, E., Sun, C., & Liberman, R. (2010). Aggression and sexual behavior in best-selling pornography videos: A content analysis update. Violence Against Women, 16(10), 1065–1085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brotheridge, C. M., & Grandey, A. A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of “people work”. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60(1), 17–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, A., Futch, V. A., & Tolman, D. L. (2011). It’s like doing homework: Academic achievement discourse in adolescent girls’ fellatio narratives. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 8(3), 239–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacchioni, T. (2007). Heterosexuality and “the labour of love”: A contribution to recent debates on female sexual dysfunction. Sexualities, 10(3), 299–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacchioni, T. (2015). Big pharma, women, and the labour of love. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods and Research, 42(3), 294–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, W. C. (2007). Oral sex: Varied behaviors and perceptions in a college population. Journal of Sex Research, 44(1), 28–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conroy, N. E., Krishnakumar, A., & Leone, J. M. (2015). Reexamining issues of conceptualization and willing consent: The hidden role of coercion in experiences of sexual acquiescence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(11), 1828–1846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeMaris, A. (1997). Elevated sexual activity in violent marriages: Hypersexuality or sexual extortion? Journal of Sex Research, 34(4), 361–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSouza, E. R., & Hutz, C. S. (1996). Reactions to refusals of sexual advances among U.S. and Brazilian men and women. Sex Roles, 34(7–8), 549–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, S., & Umberson, D. (2008). The performance of desire: Gender and sexual negotiation in long-term marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(2), 391–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmerstig, E., Wijma, B., & Berterö, C. (2008). Why do young women continue to have sexual intercourse despite pain? Journal of Adolescent Health, 43(4), 357–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, R. J. (2005). Why emotion work matters: Sex, gender, and the division of household labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(2), 337–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahs, B. (2011). Performing sex: The making and unmaking of women's erotic lives. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahs, B. (2014). Coming to power: Women′s fake orgasms and best orgasm experiences illuminate the failures of (hetero) sex and the pleasures of connection. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 16(8), 974–988.

  • Fahs, B., & Gonzalez, J. (2014). The front lines of the “back door”: Navigating (dis) engagement, coercion, and pleasure in women′s anal sex experiences. Feminism & Psychology, 24(4), 500–520.

  • Fahs, B., & Swank, E. (2011). Social identities as predictors of women′s sexual satisfaction and sexual activity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(5), 903–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahs, B., & Swank, E. (2016). The other third shift?: Women′s emotion work in their sexual relationships. Feminist Formations, 28(3), 46–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, S. L., & Lannutti, P. J. (2010). Examining the content and outcomes of young adults’ satisfying and unsatisfying conversations about sex. Qualitative Health Research, 20(3), 375–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fava, N. M., & Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2012). Young women’s adolescent experiences of oral sex: Relation of age of initiation to sexual motivation, sexual coercion, and psychological functioning. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1191–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fields, J. (2008). Risky lessons: Sex education and social inequality. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.f.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, J., & Valenti, J. (2008). Yes means yes: Visions of female sexual power and a world without rape. Berkeley: Seal Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frith, H. (1997). Young women refusing sex: The epistemological adventures of a feminist. Doctoral Dissertation for Loughborough University. https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/6870.

  • Frith, H., & Kitzinger, C. (2001). Reformulating sexual script theory: Developing a discursive psychology of sexual negotiation. Theory and Psychology, 11(2), 209–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gavey, N. (2013). Just sex? The cultural scaffolding of rape. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A., & Canterberry, M. (2011). Sexism and assertive courtship strategies. Sex Roles, 65(11–12), 840–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halperin, D. T. (1999). Heterosexual anal intercourse: Prevalence, cultural factors, and HIV infection and other risks, part I. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 13(12), 717–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hans, J. D., Gillen, M., & Akande, K. (2010). Sex redefined: The reclassification of oral-genital contact. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 42(2), 74–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbenick, D., Reece, M., Schick, V., Sanders, S. A., Dodge, B., & Fortenberry, J. D. (2010). Sexual behavior in the United States: Results from a national probability sample of men and women ages 14–94. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7(5), 255–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, M. S., & Fischer, A. R. (2001). Does entitlement mediate the link between masculinity and rape-related variables? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, B., Kling, A., Kessler, C., Knapke, K., Diefenbach, P., & Elias, J. E. (1994). Gender differences in sexual fantasy and behavior in a college population: A ten-year replication. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 20(2), 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. I. (2008). Modal expressions in refusals of friends’ interpersonal requests: Politeness and effectiveness. Communication Studies, 59(2), 148–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, I. M., & Sigler, R. T. (1997). Forced sexual intercourse in intimate relationships. New York: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jozkowski, K. N., & Peterson, Z. D. (2013). College students and sexual consent: Unique insights. Journal of Sex Research, 50(6), 517–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaestle, C. E. (2009). Sexual insistence and disliked sexual activities in young adulthood: Differences by gender and relationship characteristics. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 41(1), 33–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J., May, P., Sörensen, S., & DelTosta, J. (2010). Sexual revictimization during women’s first year of college: Self-blame and sexual refusal assertiveness as possible mechanisms. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(11), 2113–2126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennett, D. J., Humphreys, T. P., & Bramley, J. E. (2013). Sexual resourcefulness and gender roles as moderators of relationship satisfaction and consenting to unwanted sex in women. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 22, 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiefer, A. K., & Sanchez, D. T. (2007). Scripting sexual passivity: A gender role perspective. Personal Relationships, 14(2), 269–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Muise, A., & Impett, E. A. (2018). The relationship implications of rejecting a partner for sex kindly versus having sex reluctantly. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 485–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitzinger, C., & Frith, H. (1999). Just say no? The use of conversation analysis in developing a feminist perspective on sexual refusal. Discourse and Society, 10(3), 293–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, M. (1985). Unwanted intercourse: The difficulty of saying no. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9(2), 184–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malacad, B. L., & Hess, G. C. (2010). Oral sex: Behaviors and feelings of Canadian young women and implications for sex education. The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care, 15(3), 177–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, E. K., Taft, C. T., & Resick, P. A. (2007). A review of marital rape. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(3), 329–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, S. I. (2011). Who is the “self” in self reports of sexual satisfaction? Research and policy implications. Sexuality Research and Social policy, 8(4), 304–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGowan, M. K. (2009). Debate: On silencing and sexual refusal. Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(4), 487–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, E., Johnson, I., & Sigler, R. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions for women’s participation in unwanted sexual intercourse. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(5), 515–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosher, W. D., Chandra, A., & Jones, J. (2005). Sexual behavior and selected health measures: Men and women 15–44 years of age, United States 2002. Advance Data, 362, 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muehlenhard, C. L., Andrews, S. L., & Beal, G. K. (1996). Beyond “just saying no”: Dealing with men′s unwanted sexual advances in heterosexual dating contexts. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8(1–2), 141–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muehlenhard, C. L., & Shippee, S. K. (2010). Men′s and women′s reports of pretending orgasm. Journal of Sex Research, 47(6), 552–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muise, A., Boudreau, G. K., & Rosen, N. O. (2017). Seeking connection versus avoiding disappointment: An experimental manipulation of approach and avoidance sexual goals and the implications for desire and satisfaction. The Journal of Sex Research, 54(3), 296–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murnen, S. K., Perot, A., & Byrne, D. (1989). Coping with unwanted sexual activity: Normative responses, situational determinants, and individual differences. Journal of Sex Research, 26(1), 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, P., & Burr, J. (2003). What is “normal” about women’s (hetero)sexual desire and orgasm? A report of an in-depth interview study. Social Science and Medicine, 57(9), 1735–1745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Byrne, R., Rapley, M., & Hansen, S. (2006). “You couldn’t say ‘no’, could you?”: Young men’s understandings of sexual refusal. Feminism and Psychology, 16(2), 133–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, B. N., Brock, P. M., Butler, A. R., Pickles, M., Brisson, M., Baggaley, R. F., et al. (2015). Prevalence and frequency of heterosexual anal intercourse among young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS and Behavior, 19(7), 1338–1360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philadelphoff-Puren, N. (2004). The mark of refusal: Sexual violence and the politics of recontextualization. Feminist Theory, 5(3), 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinkerton, S., Cecil, H., Bogart, L., & Abramson, P. (2003). The pleasures of sex: An empirical investigation. Cognition and Emotion, 17(2), 341–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, B. R. S., Short, B. J., Thurmes, P. J., & Coleman, E. (1998). Anodyspareunia, the unacknowledged sexual dysfunction: A validation study of painful receptive anal intercourse and its psychosexual concomitants in homosexual men. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 24(4), 281–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, D. T., Crocker, J., & Boike, K. R. (2005). Doing gender in the bedroom: Investing in gender norms and the sexual experience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(10), 1445–1455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Štulhofer, A., & Ajdukovićb, D. (2011). Should we take anodyspareunia seriously? A descriptive analysis of pain during receptive anal intercourse in young heterosexual women. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 37(5), 346–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, E. J., Stelzl, M., & Lafrance, M. N. (2017). Faking to finish: Women’s accounts of feigning sexual pleasure to end unwanted sex. Sexualities, 20(3), 281–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolman, D. (2009). Dilemmas of desire: Teenage girls talk about sexuality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vannier, S. A., & Byers, S. E. (2013). A qualitative study of university students’ perceptions of oral sex, intercourse, and intimacy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(8), 1573–1581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vannier, S. A., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2012). Who gives and who gets: Why, when, and with whom young people engage in oral sex. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(5), 572–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., Kleiner, S., & Irizarry, Y. (2010). Pornography, normalization, and empowerment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(6), 1389–1401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiederman, M. W. (1997). Pretending orgasm during sexual intercourse: Correlates in a sample of young adult women. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 23(2), 131–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. M., Koch, P. B., & Mansfield, P. K. (2006). Women’s sexual desire: A feminist critique. Journal of Sex Research, 43(3), 236–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. R., McKay, A., Komarnicky, T., & Milhausen, R. R. (2016). Was it good for you too? An analysis of gender differences in oral sex practices and pleasure ratings among heterosexual Canadian University students. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 25(1), 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worthen, M. G. (2014). An invitation to use craigslist ads to recruit respondents from stigmatized groups for qualitative interviews. Qualitative Research, 14(3), 371–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

We received no funding for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, 4701 W. Thunderbird Road, Glendale, AZ, 85306, USA

    Breanne Fahs & Eric Swank

Authors
  1. Breanne Fahs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric Swank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Breanne Fahs.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Breanne Fahs and Eric Swank declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures were performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Special thanks to the Feminist Research on Gender and Sexuality Group for their contributions to this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fahs, B., Swank, E. Reciprocity, Partner Pressure, and Emotional Labor: Women Discuss Negotiations Around Oral and Anal Sex. Sexuality & Culture 25, 217–234 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09766-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09766-w

Keywords

search

Navigation