Intimate partner sexual violence (IPSV) is a significant aspect of intimate partner violence (IPV). While intimate partners commit one third of sexual assaults, IPSV is often overlooked in studies about IPV and in research on sexual violence. There are difficulties identifying, defining, and measuring IPSV, and research lacks consistency in terminology and measurement. The purpose of this article is to review the terms, definitions, and measurements associated with IPSV. Academic journals and nonscholarly documents from the United States were searched for articles and reports associated with the study of sexual violence and IPV. Forty-nine documents met the criteria for inclusion. A four-part taxonomy defining IPSV was developed, which included IPSV, intimate partner sexual coercion, intimate partner sexual abuse, and intimate partner forced sexual activity. The average weighted prevalence rates of these various forms of IPSV were calculated across included research studies. However, the measurements generally used to assess IPV do not adequately measure IPSV. Future research should consist terms to ensure consistent conceptualization and measurement of IPSV and to inform practice with survivors.

Over the past 40 years, intimate partner violence (IPV) has evolved from an emerging social problem to a socially unacceptable crime. The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 encourages state policies that focus on criminal justice intervention, including mandatory arrest and prosecution. Services offered to victim-survivors of IPV are often tied to criminal justice intervention, or otherwise encourage separation. These interventions have been seen as effectively using the authority of the state to enhance women's power relative to that of abusive men. However, these interventions do not serve the needs of women who, for cultural or personal reasons, want to remain in their relationship, or marginalized women who fear the power of the state due to institutionalized violence, heterosexism, and racism. The one-size-fits-all approach that encourages prosecution and batterer intervention programs for offenders and shelter and advocacy for victim-survivors fails to adhere to the social work value of client self-determination and the practice principle of meeting clients where they are. It is imperative that social workers in all areas of practice are aware of IPV policies, services, and laws. Social workers' challenge moving forward is to develop innovative and evidence-based interventions that serve all victim-survivors of IPV

No abstract

How do women describe their experiences of sexual violence in their intimate relationships? In answering this question, the present article builds upon a newly developed taxonomy of intimate partner sexual violence (IPSV). Women with past or present intimate partner violence experience ( N = 28) were recruited from a domestic violence program and the community at large. Data were collected with semistructured, in-person interviews, audio recorded, and transcribed. As defined by the taxonomy, 27 women (96%) experienced intimate partner sexual abuse; 19 (68%) experienced intimate partner sexual coercion; 14 (50%) experienced intimate partner sexual assault; and two (7%) experienced intimate partner–forced sexual activity. Intimate partner sexual abuse was central to women’s experiences of IPSV. Common categories of sexual abuse were having sex outside of the relationship, controlling reproductive decisions, degrading with sexual criticism and insults, refusing communication, denying pleasure, and withholding sex. The types of IPSV did not typically occur in isolation; the taxonomy revealed a grouping pattern, with intimate partner sexual assault and intimate partner sexual coercion co-occurring with sexual abuse. Understanding the different types of IPSV as a comprehensive mechanism of sexual control is a meaningful way to conceptualize sexual violence in intimate relationships. The expanded taxonomy provides a useful therapeutic tool in helping women share and heal from these experiences.