Dominant Heterosexual Sexual Scripts in Emerging Adulthood: Conceptualization and Measurement

Abstract

Sexual script research (Simon & Gagnon 1969 , 1986 ) bourgeoned following Simon and Gagnon's groundbreaking work. Empirical measurement of sexual script adherence has been limited, however, as no measures exist that have undergone rigorous development and validation. We conducted three studies to examine current dominant sexual scripts of heterosexual adults and to develop a measure of endorsement of these scripts. In Study 1, we conducted three focus groups of men ( n = 19) and four of women ( n = 20) to discuss the current scripts governing sexual behavior. Results supported scripts for sex drive, physical and emotional sex, sexual performance, initiation and gatekeeping, and evaluation of sexual others. In Study 2, we used these qualitative findings to develop a measure of script endorsement, the Sexual Script Scale. Factor analysis of data from 721 participants revealed six interrelated factors demonstrating initial construct validity. In Study 3, confirmatory factor analysis of a separate sample of 289 participants supported the model from Study 2, and evidence of factorial invariance and test-retest reliability was obtained. This article presents the results of these studies, documenting the process of scale development from formative research through to confirmatory testing, and suggests future directions for the continued development of sexual scripting theory.

Problems with Recall-Based Attachment Style Priming Paradigms: Exclusion Criteria, Sample Bias and Reduced Power

“…Basson (2000, p.54), for example, has persuasively argued for a model of female sexual response in which "the rewards of emotional closeness-the increased commitment, bonding, and tolerance of imperfections…all serve as the motivational factors" for female sexual arousal. A strong emotional bond to sexual partners is also prominently featured in women's sexual strategies and reactions to infidelity (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992), as well as cultural expectations for women's sexual conduct (Sakaluk et al, 2013). Taken alongside the present findings, this literature suggests that women's attachment and sexual behavioral systems may be more closely intertwined, as those with less sexual experience struggled to think of relevant attachment-related memories.…”

A Critique of Carceral Feminist Arguments on Rape Myths and Sexual Scripts

“…A generation ago, LaPlante, McCormick, and Brannigan (1980) found that men were expected to and many did use a very wide range of methods to overcome women's resistance, whereas women in turn were expected to and did use every means available to avoid or at least delay sex. This finding has more recently been repeated both in terms of beliefs commonly held by men and women, and in sexual practises and attitudes reported (Sakaluk, Todd, Milhausen, & Lachowsky, 2013).…”

“…What the literature suggests is that there has been (and continues to be) a strong acceptance and reaffirmation of a script for heterosexual norms amongst both men and women, and that this informs what many people understand to constitute the meaning-giving context for consensual sexual relations (Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013;Sakaluk et al, 2013;Masters, Casey, Wells, & Morrison, 2013). But since consent-giving according to the traditional script presupposes a more passive role for women, with the consequent implication that males may feel that their scripted role entitles them to use deceptive or coercive means, feminist critical engagements with this topic have often depicted a good deal of traditionally scripted sexual activity as so limiting of female agency as to render consent invalid or at the very least severely compromised.…”

Ched Evans, rape myths and Medusa's gaze: a story of mirrors and windows

“…The second is the critique of the way that women's morality and sexuality can become the subject of forensic inspection, and that this can be allowed to impact on how jurors and other legal actors assess female complainants. Complainants may be judged to have 'precipitat[ed] their own attack' by (say) becoming too intoxicated to ward off predictable male sexual advances (Finch and Munro, 2007;Gunby, Carline and Beynon, 2010;Hickman and Muehlenhard, 1999), or else to have failed to observe traditional sex-role expectations as gatekeepers of sexual morality (the initiator role being a masculine one) (LaPlante et al 1980;Masters et al 2013;Sakaluk et al 2014). The third is that discussions of consent may implicitly give undue weight to visual or at least non-verbal 'signs' of sexual willingness that might in some circumstances be allowed to undermine a complainant's own testimony (Rees, 2012).…”