TY - JOUR
T1 - Sexual Consent Communication among Sexual and Gender Minority College Students
AU - Griner, Stacey B.
AU - Kline, Nolan
AU - Monroy, Edward
AU - Thompson, Erika L.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Sexual scripts and consent communication methods are seldom explored outside of heterosexual, cisgender relationships. To date, little research has been conducted to determine how sexual and gender minority (SGM) students conceptualize and communicate consent. This study explored SGM undergraduate students’ (n = 81) sexual consent communication scripts using open-ended survey items. We conducted a thematic freelisting analysis to assess the domains of consent and non-consent scripts using Smith’s Salience Score (S). Salient indicators of consent were verbal communication (S = .31; 38%); however, more specific forms of verbal communication were listed as a spectrum, including: asking (a request, S = .16; 23%), saying (a statement, S = .16; 20%), and telling (a command, S = .10; 13%). The most salient indicators of verbal non-consent were on a similar spectrum: saying no (S = .42; 9%), verbal communication broadly (S = .23; 27%), and telling no (S = .06; 7%). Salient physical indicators of both consent and non-consent also followed a spectrum in their descriptions. Future research among SGM college students should explore the meanings, patterns, and differences in consent communication and sexual scripts.
AB - Sexual scripts and consent communication methods are seldom explored outside of heterosexual, cisgender relationships. To date, little research has been conducted to determine how sexual and gender minority (SGM) students conceptualize and communicate consent. This study explored SGM undergraduate students’ (n = 81) sexual consent communication scripts using open-ended survey items. We conducted a thematic freelisting analysis to assess the domains of consent and non-consent scripts using Smith’s Salience Score (S). Salient indicators of consent were verbal communication (S = .31; 38%); however, more specific forms of verbal communication were listed as a spectrum, including: asking (a request, S = .16; 23%), saying (a statement, S = .16; 20%), and telling (a command, S = .10; 13%). The most salient indicators of verbal non-consent were on a similar spectrum: saying no (S = .42; 9%), verbal communication broadly (S = .23; 27%), and telling no (S = .06; 7%). Salient physical indicators of both consent and non-consent also followed a spectrum in their descriptions. Future research among SGM college students should explore the meanings, patterns, and differences in consent communication and sexual scripts.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85101026170&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85101026170&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/00224499.2021.1882929
DO - 10.1080/00224499.2021.1882929
M3 - Article
C2 - 33595408
AN - SCOPUS:85101026170
SN - 0022-4499
VL - 58
SP - 462
EP - 468
JO - Journal of Sex Research
JF - Journal of Sex Research
IS - 4
ER -